Designing

On Jan 12, 8:19=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote innews:2qbqi6lvch2mt59=
[email protected]:
>
> > Let's put it this way: 99.99999% of lead balloons don't float, even if
> > filled with helium, hydrogen, or floatium.
>
> you should see the hilarious epiode ...
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

Those guys are having way too much fun. Talk about a dream job.....

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:21:04 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:35:15 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>>>My first really large project with Sketchup, Cutlist 4.0, and Cutlist Plus
>>>was the bedroom Tower project that I was posting about 12-14 months ago.
>>
>> I was reminded of that thing when I watched the voluptuous Catherine
>> Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment". Linked is the building I refer to. ;)
>> http://tinyurl.com/4squez8 (Eat your heart out, Petronas!)
>
>LOL, absolutely how they looked when moving into the master bedroom in the
>new house. The towers grew a top which made them too tall to simply slide
>up-right through the door opening, unless I removed the tops.

<g>


>Sooo we laid them over and carried them into the bedroom, me on one end, my
>son on the other. The trouble here was the fact that you ender the bedroom
>through a short hallway now instead of straight in. The towers came in
>contact with the door jam on both sides and the end corner of the hall wall.
>Basically the towers were in contact with "house parts" at 3 different
>locations. Fortunately the towers were not 1/64" wider or deeper or I would
>have had to remove the tops. It was a perfect fit, no loss of paint from
>the either side of the jams or the wall, but there was a slight bit of
>resistance. Whew!, again.

Are the walls still blue in places, Leon? I'd imagine a large blue
cloud around that particular little move. Heh heh heh.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:58:52 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:23:17 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>>>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
>>> your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in knowledge,
>>> by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a little bit
>>> overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll learn to
>>
>> A LITTLE BIT? He make joke.
>
>Larry, I am just curious. What, specifically, were you thinking of when
>you wrote that? Just the DP baseboard or something more?

You tend to go way overboard on getting details (for every project),
so I was kidding you about it. No offense intended.

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:51:12 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:02:18 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>>>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know".
>>>>
>>>> Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or someone
>>>> might want it, in the case of product development).
>>>
>>>
>>> The philosophy of the contractor I worked for was that we could do
>>> anything the customer would pay us to do. The important thing is to
>>> capture the specifications in writing, rather than letting the customer
>>> keep coming up with new ideas. Very much like has been discussed here
>>> regarding woodworking contracts, fees for changes, etc.
>>
>> Right, your job is to get the customer to want the feechurs, *after* you've
>> signed the fixed-price contract.
>
>There was always something in the works with our customer. We
>continually developed two systems simultaneously so that we could
>provide new versions faster. Our customer (Uncle Sam), always
>had new wishes. We were not sneaky about it. Just firm.

Ah, government work. The money's not coming out of anyone's pocket, so it
comes out in *buckets*. Been there, though not for long.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:44:26 -0800 (PST), SonomaProducts.com wrote:

>  Do you think of designing as "part of the
>> work" or "part of the fun"?
>>
> ....I probably often started by looking at the
>> woodpile...lol.   Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Inspiration comes from many places. Often I see something I want to
> reproduce. Often a glance at the wood pile inspires and I do a quick
> sketch and start cutting. Often I take weeks (or more) doing
> variations of a design to get it just right.
>
> One note, is anything on paper does not convey scale and 5 minutes
> slicing cardboard to mock up the actual size of something can be very
> instructive. I designed a plant stand that once instantiated in wood
> was too big to even be sold as a lecturn.
>
I once built some puppy houses up on legs, the original idea
was to have something that two people could move around when
the ground became less than pleasant under them. Armed with a mental
design incorporating materials on hand, the finished houses require
two people, a couple of come-a-longs and a backhoe to move.

basilisk

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:50:03 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 4:57 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>> Depends. (sorry, not talking about your undies.) Lead balloons don't
>> float, most others do.
>>
>Axchewishly..... lead balloons DO float. Mythbusters made a lead
>balloon which floated just fine.

Let's put it this way: 99.99999% of lead balloons don't float, even if
filled with helium, hydrogen, or floatium.

I'm guessing that the one on Mythbusters was filled with Sedona, oops,
Sarnia Banana Gas. I understand that it's quite like floatium.
Lifty, man.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:32:38 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> ?
>> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>
>> Hey, don't talk about my father-in-law like that! He'd spend an hour
>> making a tool or fixture to save 30 seconds on a five minute job. It is
>> more the challenge of "I can do that" rather than any real time savings.
>> The difference between a hobby and a profit making business.
>>
>
>I think, for me, it's not just the "challenge" of whether I can do
>that, but the intent that it will be part of my education. It's a
>philosophy you could build a lifestyle around: "When the next challenge
>comes around I'll be all that much ready for it." In my case, I may be
>building mobile bases for a TS and/or other tools someday.... It seems
>quite consistent with how I learned to play some musical instruments. I
>never started off trying to play hard stuff--just the opposite. If all
>I was after was a cheap, efficient, and by most measures excellent
>solution, I could just play CDs! : ) I'm not a purist, by any means,
>but I get by the best I know how to. One of the things I really enjoy
>is life, is that the latter is a dynamic (i.e. continually evolving)
>state. Have fun!

Good ethos, Bill. Kudos.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking
> in designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather
> enjoy drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the
> quality of my woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage
> years, the last time I had the resources to work with wood, I would
> get to the cutting in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by
> looking at the woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the
> question.
>
> Bill

I plan somewhere between 80-90% of a project before starting. Usually
it's just drawing a picture and adding notes with arrows to call out
details I'm either too lazy or too inexperienced to draw properly. I do
enjoy the design part, but have only so much patience to work on any one
project. If it takes too long, I'll quit working on it for months (or
longer) and get back to it.

Puckdropper

On 01/11/2011 01:36 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:

> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>
...or paralysis through analysis.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> ...or paralysis through analysis.
---------------------------------------
The octopus is in the room, it's bag pipe time.

Lew

Bill wrote:

> BTW, my hammer is worn out (rubber handle covering is loose) and I
> have been debating whether to get the Estwing with the laminated
> leather grip or the regular model. So far I haven't been able to
> justify the $7 extra for the former.

I still use the one I bought in 1943. Different handle, though, made it a
couple of decades ago when the original broke.

Bought the hammer, a saw, jack plane, brace and a few auger bits for $10.00
at Montgomery Wards. I still use the brace too :)

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:10:11 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Aren't all the joists open lengthwise? Blow it in!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Actually, mine run the other way, and half are under a very shallow part
>>of the roof, and I don't know whether they are accessible. I suppose
>>everything is accessible through the ceiling. I'll probably look into
>>that someday. One project at a time! :)
>>
>>Do you know where to get seals (rubber stripping) for around the frame
>>of an electric garage door? Mine is 1/3-gone. I think that is something
>>I should replace first.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> BORGs all have 'em. Buy a whole new set for under $20. Get the bottom
> seal, too. I picked one up for $13.95 about 6 months ago at a local
> home improvement store.
>
> --
> The United States of America is the greatest, the
> noblest and, in its original founding principles,
> the only moral country in the history of the world.
> -- Ayn Rand

Ayup.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-100353490/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

Comes in white and brown IIRC.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"RonB" wrote:

Depends on the project. Larger projects such as a new cabinet or
similar work usually gets pretty well planned before I start. I am an
old board draftsman and I normally do a "layout" drawing before I
start. As a draftsman, "layout" was not a finished, pretty drawing;
rather a fit and function layout with rough dimensions. This layout
usually defines about 50-75% or the end product, the rest might be
worked out during fabrication and assembly. For most jobs, I do the
layout on a 2' square piece of poster board and use my trusty drafting
table with a parallel bar. Shop sketches, using the layout as
baseline, are done using quad pad on a clipboard that hangs near my
bench.,

For the record, I am CAD trained but the training goes way back
(1980's early 90's), After that I had the misfortune :^} of getting
into management and never used CAD much. I have fiddled with PC-based
CAD and used the architectural program PUNCH to conceptually lay out
our new house. I have looked at Sketchup and others but frankly, I
would rather lay it out by hand and work in the shop than learn design
software. Maybe someday.
----------------------------------
Great minds run in the same gutter.

Put myself thru school slinging lead on a drafting table starting when
I was 18..

After graduation from college, it was free hand sketches for the
drafting department to convert into finished drawings.

As a salesman, it was cocktail napkin engineering time.

Lost track of how many jobs were entered with a pile of napkins
documenting the job, especially control diagrams for process
automation, electrical power distribution systems and industrial
lighting layouts.

If I were 20 and starting again, I'd be gung ho over some puter design
program; however, at this point in my life, the spirit doesn't move me
to learn new puter programs.

Built a 55 ft, double head sail ketch with nothing but sketches done
with a couple of triangles and pads of 8x8 graph paper.

Not for everybody, but works for me.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
> As long as you had fun making sawdust, all is well with the world.
> Next time try a time saver...
<Snip>

You need to take a look at Fred Bingham's book for his handy dandy
guide.

A piece of 13 ply that you cut out a 30-60 triangle with a 12"-14"
height. Cut out center to form 2" legs and add a bottom cleat the
extends out a couple of inches.
(Lightens the jig and provides a handle.

First use makes a partial cut in the cleat which is now an automatic
reference point.

That jig alone was worth the $20 for the book.

Lew

On 01/15/2011 05:33 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>
>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>> determine the complexity.
>>
>
>
> How many bits in a byte?
>
Depends - on a IBM 709x, 36 bit words, 6 bytes to a word, 6 bit bytes...

Bill wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>
>
> Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
> your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in
> knowledge, by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a
> little bit overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll
> learn to optimize that with regard to time, utility, and money. In
> the meantime, the cost of my going a little bit overboard is part of
> the price of tuition. I need the practice! I'd might try out my
> router on this project but I think Mike would give me a bad time
> about it! lol. Stay warm!
>

Don't know which Mike you're referring to here Bill, but if it's me - no
sweat. I'll only give you a hard time if you beat it to death instead of
just getting out there and giving it a whirl. Try it - you'll like it.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Maybe some interest....
http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.html see where it
says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
can't be floated.

Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
I'll let you decide.


On 1/11/2011 12:54 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> I used to be a software developer, I am still in the business but in a
> diff position.
>
> I believe in software that planning for the problems is the key goal.
> Too often I see idiot programmers doing the job, but not handling the
> errors properly coming up with useless buggy code that is not sustainable.
>
> I take the same approach with woodworking. I look for my problems.
> Then plan around it.
>
> The design is the easy part, answering the hicups is the other.
> Such hickups are making sure the order is correct. Somethings need to be
> cut before shaping, others are opposite. Somethings will intefere with
> another feature.. I look for these after the initial idea and refine.
>
> I can keep a very simple sketch.. but I keep a detailed list of the
> steps that I see me falling over. To make sure I don't fall over them.
>
>
>
> On 1/11/2011 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>> think).
>>
>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>> or "part of the fun"?
>>
>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>
>> Bill

On Jan 11, 2:24=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > tiredofspam wrote:
> >> Maybe some interest....
> >>http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.htmlsee where it
> >> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
> >> can't be floated.
>
> >> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
> >> I'll let you decide.
>
> > Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matter t=
han
> > the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why do =
you
> > care? =A0;)
>
> > Bill
>
> If the weight of a ship is less than the weight of the water it displaces=
,
> it floats. =A0If heavier than the water, it sinks. =A0Teak will float if =
boat
> shaped. =A0;~)

Will it float if it is balloon shaped?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:02:26 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:15:21 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Got insulation in the roof yet? Just drill 4" holes and blow it in if
>>>> you have a finished floor up there. Cover with a strip of carpeting.
>>>> ;)
>>>
>>> I have a half-finished floor up there. And part is not even (very)
>>> accessible. Unfortunately this project is not near the top of my list
>>> for now.
>>
>> Aren't all the joists open lengthwise? Blow it in!
>>
>>
>>> My little black "shop mole" is just going to half to tough it out.
>>
>> HUH? Whassat?
>
>Awe, you missed my two posts about my furry, black shop mole? One was
>sort of funny...I'll see if I can locate the posts later.

Oh, that's the little guy who wandered in one day? I do remember it,
vaguely.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Jan 11, 11:31=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know there are quite a few software people here. =A0Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? =A0Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. =A0 Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

Spend most time designing, process of coming up with
as many answers as possible, then reducing to the best,
simplest of the crop. The axiom "less is more" proves itself
every time. Ideas come from anywhere. I carry a sketchbook
(pencil and point perspective work better than CAD software,
and I have years' experience with ACAD) and fill between
2 and 6 pages pretty much every day, makes better use of
doctor's office waiting room time than reading the latest copy
of People. Evening is the most fertile time for really good
ideas. Usually fill a page or two before going to sleep.

"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:35:15 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>>> one
>>> of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>>> (and
>>> the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I think).
>>>
>>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the
>>> work"
>>> or "part of the fun"?
>>>
>>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>>> time
>>> I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting in
>>> minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>I do make money doing this but...
>>
>>1. If I had to give up woodworking I would continue to draw woodworking
>>projects.
>>2. I hate to solve problems in the shop when they can be solved at the
>>computer before buying materials.
>>3. I do spend a lot of time designing at the computer however it probably
>>saves me 2~3 times over in the shop.
>>4. Computer drawings are my detailed instructions that details how
>>everything should be cut and how the pieces will fit.
>>
>>My first really large project with Sketchup, Cutlist 4.0, and Cutlist Plus
>>was the bedroom Tower project that I was posting about 12-14 months ago.
>
> I was reminded of that thing when I watched the voluptuous Catherine
> Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment". Linked is the building I refer to. ;)
> http://tinyurl.com/4squez8 (Eat your heart out, Petronas!)
>


LOL, absolutely how they looked when moving into the master bedroom in the
new house. The towers grew a top which made them too tall to simply slide
up-right through the door opening, unless I removed the tops.

Sooo we laid them over and carried them into the bedroom, me on one end, my
son on the other. The trouble here was the fact that you ender the bedroom
through a short hallway now instead of straight in. The towers came in
contact with the door jam on both sides and the end corner of the hall wall.
Basically the towers were in contact with "house parts" at 3 different
locations. Fortunately the towers were not 1/64" wider or deeper or I would
have had to remove the tops. It was a perfect fit, no loss of paint from
the either side of the jams or the wall, but there was a slight bit of
resistance. Whew!, again.

"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cf4ef5a1-d44c-4e8c-a7f2-5941b3f36acc@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
....I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

Inspiration comes from many places. Often I see something I want to
reproduce. Often a glance at the wood pile inspires and I do a quick
sketch and start cutting. Often I take weeks (or more) doing
variations of a design to get it just right.

One note, is anything on paper does not convey scale and 5 minutes
slicing cardboard to mock up the actual size of something can be very
instructive. I designed a plant stand that once instantiated in wood
was too big to even be sold as a lecturn.

As an FYI, I often find myself usingthe Agile method (which we use in
SW design in my real job) on my wood projects where design refines
over time during creation.


For the sake of insuring that what ever I build will fit, I quite often
draw the room with its contents and add the project drawing to see how the
project is going to fit in. Through that approach out the window if you
ever move. ;~(

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.

Depends on the project. On the wagon I built a while back I drew the
wheels up in 3D with all dimensions, the body in 2D, and the rest kind
of winged. On the other hand, the sandalwood box in the medicine
cabinet that contains my comb, straight razor, and some other oddments
when not in use I just started cutting.

I used to be a software developer, I am still in the business but in a
diff position.

I believe in software that planning for the problems is the key goal.
Too often I see idiot programmers doing the job, but not handling the
errors properly coming up with useless buggy code that is not sustainable.

I take the same approach with woodworking. I look for my problems.
Then plan around it.

The design is the easy part, answering the hicups is the other.
Such hickups are making sure the order is correct. Somethings need to be
cut before shaping, others are opposite. Somethings will intefere with
another feature.. I look for these after the initial idea and refine.

I can keep a very simple sketch.. but I keep a detailed list of the
steps that I see me falling over. To make sure I don't fall over them.



On 1/11/2011 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
> or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not one
> of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design (and
> the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
> or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last time
> I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting in
> minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

I do make money doing this but...

1. If I had to give up woodworking I would continue to draw woodworking
projects.
2. I hate to solve problems in the shop when they can be solved at the
computer before buying materials.
3. I do spend a lot of time designing at the computer however it probably
saves me 2~3 times over in the shop.
4. Computer drawings are my detailed instructions that details how
everything should be cut and how the pieces will fit.

My first really large project with Sketchup, Cutlist 4.0, and Cutlist Plus
was the bedroom Tower project that I was posting about 12-14 months ago.
Almost with blind faith I depended on the Sketchup drawings for assembly,
Cutlist 4.0 to gather all information about the 300+ components in the
drawings and import into Cutlist Plus for optimizing my materials. I did
double check, but initial data importation was accurate.

Designing is absolutely part to of the work and absolutely a large portion
of the fun.

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Let's put it this way: 99.99999% of lead balloons don't float, even if
> filled with helium, hydrogen, or floatium.
>
>

you should see the hilarious epiode ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:0a20a688-4b1d-4f63-82ea-d82e540efe82@k25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 12, 8:19 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:2qbqi6lvch2mt59
> [email protected]:
>>
>> > Let's put it this way: 99.99999% of lead balloons don't float, even
>> > if filled with helium, hydrogen, or floatium.
>>
>> you should see the hilarious epiode ...
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Han
>> email address is invalid
>
> Those guys are having way too much fun. Talk about a dream job.....
>

Bang!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:23:17 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>
>
>Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
>your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in knowledge,
>by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a little bit
>overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll learn to

A LITTLE BIT? He make joke.


>optimize that with regard to time, utility, and money. In the meantime,
>the cost of my going a little bit overboard is part of the price of
>tuition. I need the practice! I'd might try out my router on this
>project but I think Mike would give me a bad time about it! lol. Stay
>warm!

Got insulation in the roof yet? Just drill 4" holes and blow it in if
you have a finished floor up there. Cover with a strip of carpeting.
;)

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:02:18 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>
>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know".
>>
>> Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or someone
>> might want it, in the case of product development).
>
>
>The philosophy of the contractor I worked for was that we could do
>anything the customer would pay us to do. The important thing is to
>capture the specifications in writing, rather than letting the customer
>keep coming up with new ideas. Very much like has been discussed here
>regarding woodworking contracts, fees for changes, etc.

Right, your job is to get the customer to want the feechurs, *after* you've
signed the fixed-price contract.

On Jan 11, 10:31=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? =A0Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>

>
> Bill

Depends on the project. Larger projects such as a new cabinet or
similar work usually gets pretty well planned before I start. I am an
old board draftsman and I normally do a "layout" drawing before I
start. As a draftsman, "layout" was not a finished, pretty drawing;
rather a fit and function layout with rough dimensions. This layout
usually defines about 50-75% or the end product, the rest might be
worked out during fabrication and assembly. For most jobs, I do the
layout on a 2' square piece of poster board and use my trusty drafting
table with a parallel bar. Shop sketches, using the layout as
baseline, are done using quad pad on a clipboard that hangs near my
bench.,

For the record, I am CAD trained but the training goes way back
(1980's early 90's), After that I had the misfortune :^} of getting
into management and never used CAD much. I have fiddled with PC-based
CAD and used the architectural program PUNCH to conceptually lay out
our new house. I have looked at Sketchup and others but frankly, I
would rather lay it out by hand and work in the shop than learn design
software. Maybe someday.

RonB

On Jan 11, 4:57=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 2:24 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > tiredofspam wrote:
> >> >> Maybe some interest....
> >> >>http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.htmlseewhere it
> >> >> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
> >> >> can't be floated.
>
> >> >> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
> >> >> I'll let you decide.
>
> >> > Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matte=
r than
> >> > the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why =
do you
> >> > care? ;)
>
> >> > Bill
>
> >> If the weight of a ship is less than the weight of the water it displa=
ces,
> >> it floats. If heavier than the water, it sinks. Teak will float if boa=
t
> >> shaped. ;~)
>
> >Will it float if it is balloon shaped?
>
> Depends. (sorry, not talking about your undies.) Lead balloons don't
> float, most others do.
>
Axchewishly..... lead balloons DO float. Mythbusters made a lead
balloon which floated just fine.

=A0Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
....I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. =A0 Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

Inspiration comes from many places. Often I see something I want to
reproduce. Often a glance at the wood pile inspires and I do a quick
sketch and start cutting. Often I take weeks (or more) doing
variations of a design to get it just right.

One note, is anything on paper does not convey scale and 5 minutes
slicing cardboard to mock up the actual size of something can be very
instructive. I designed a plant stand that once instantiated in wood
was too big to even be sold as a lecturn.

As an FYI, I often find myself usingthe Agile method (which we use in
SW design in my real job) on my wood projects where design refines
over time during creation.

Bill wrote:

>
> Thanks Mike. I cut the 5 30-inch "running boards" cut today with my
> circular saw. I don't think any two of them vary by more than 1/16 in
> length. That would have probably been a 10 minutes job with a TS, no?
> I put a new blade on and spent most of my time tinkering with my
> make-shift fence afixed with 2 Harbor Freight 6" clamps. I made
> careful use of my combination square. I'd mark where I wanted the cut
> and then mark where the fence needed to be. With some thought I could
> probably come up with a better procedure. But that was the first time
> I ever did what I did, so I'll regard it as a success. So now I have
> a neat little stack of boards ready for step 2.
>

As long as you had fun making sawdust, all is well with the world. Next
time try a time saver... Mark your boards. Set your saw on the board with
the blade lined up precisely for the cut. Lay your speed square on the
board as if you were going to mark a line for cut off. Slide it up against
the side of the base of your saw and hold it there tight. Squeeze the
trigger and run your saw through the board using the speed square as your
guide. Nice and quick. Just be sure to hold the speed square firmly to the
board.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

I don't know how to use Shetch-Up or any other similar program. I get
many ideas, for projects, from every/any-where and I sometimes create
my own modifications, when/where needed, as I suppose most hobbists
do.

I have become proficient enough that I can often start basic
construction (rough cutting, rough measures, ie., educated guesses)
with many construction aspects, but when it comes to details for
things like jointery fit dimensions, boards lengths, panel dimensions,
I'll go to the planning table and draw out the exact measures and
coordinate the correct cuts & assembly details. It is often at these
times - detailed measurement figures, drawing/planning schematics,
fitting via measures - that I may discover a previous measure/figure/
fit will need to be tweaked. If this detailed phase of the project
was not fun, also, I would likely skimp on the exactness of the
measures, figures, fits, etc., and my pleasure with getting a project
finished, properly, would fall short. If I don't build it correctly,
and enjoy what I'm doing, then the whole process would simply be a
chore or task to be done. My hobby projects are not chores to be
done!

*Repairing a tool is sometimes a chore, but at the same time,
rewarding, because I know the end result will allow me to get back to
doing the pleasureable work, using that tool. I like fixing
(maintenance) a tool successfully, too, and sharpening a tool
perfectly, etc. It's nice to have a good reliable (old friend) tool
working well for me. Somehow (?), I enjoy the "company" of many of my
tools and my shop. They are like old friends. They are not job-
sites. Some old hand-me-down tools, somehow, I sense, come with the
friendship of the previous owners, too.... and that's a comforting
thought, too. (LOL, I think I'm getting into a foggy (Tao) realm,
here, (like Grasshopper in Kung Fu, was it?), becoming one with the
tool.)

There have been times when I build something, not that I need it for a
function in my home or elsewhere, but I build it because I think I
can. This initial thinking is part of the planning stage, I
suppose. Later, I either find a personal use for it or give it away.

I know how to make many particular joints. I know how to make moldings/
profiles, I know how to make many of these kinds of specific "designs"
or parts. The detailed planning for coordinating and assembling all
of these parts is what I spend lots of out-of-shop time doing....
making sure all the measures/figures/dimensions/fits allow for the
working/coordinating/assembling of everything properly.

It is rewarding to accomplish the building of a nice piece (excellent
outcome). However, there has been times when I, personally, have
been more gratified for having solved/created a particular design
aspect/issue, within the piece (because of the detailed out-of-shop
planning/measuring/figuring), than the satisfaction I've had with the
whole of the finished piece. Somehow, I think, I have more
gratification for solving/creating a detail, than if I were to rely on
a computer program to solve/create it for me. .... Does that make
sense? Not sure my meaning is clear, here. Maybe if I used (learned
to use) Sketch-Up or something, I would appreciate what it has to
offer, just like any other good reliable tool.

I think I got off on a few tangents, here. It's cold outside and I'm
stuck indoors.... a scenario for ramblings on, that way.
Sonny

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:35:15 -0600, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not one
>> of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design (and
>> the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I think).
>>
>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>> or "part of the fun"?
>>
>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last time
>> I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting in
>> minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>
>> Bill
>
>I do make money doing this but...
>
>1. If I had to give up woodworking I would continue to draw woodworking
>projects.
>2. I hate to solve problems in the shop when they can be solved at the
>computer before buying materials.
>3. I do spend a lot of time designing at the computer however it probably
>saves me 2~3 times over in the shop.
>4. Computer drawings are my detailed instructions that details how
>everything should be cut and how the pieces will fit.
>
>My first really large project with Sketchup, Cutlist 4.0, and Cutlist Plus
>was the bedroom Tower project that I was posting about 12-14 months ago.

I was reminded of that thing when I watched the voluptuous Catherine
Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment". Linked is the building I refer to. ;)
http://tinyurl.com/4squez8 (Eat your heart out, Petronas!)


>Designing is absolutely part to of the work and absolutely a large portion
>of the fun.

Amen, bruddah.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2:24 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > tiredofspam wrote:
>> >> Maybe some interest....
>> >>http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.htmlsee where it
>> >> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
>> >> can't be floated.
>>
>> >> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
>> >> I'll let you decide.
>>
>> > Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matter than
>> > the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why do you
>> > care?  ;)
>>
>> > Bill
>>
>> If the weight of a ship is less than the weight of the water it displaces,
>> it floats.  If heavier than the water, it sinks.  Teak will float if boat
>> shaped.  ;~)
>
>Will it float if it is balloon shaped?

Depends. (sorry, not talking about your undies.) Lead balloons don't
float, most others do.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:10:11 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Aren't all the joists open lengthwise? Blow it in!
>>
>>
>Actually, mine run the other way, and half are under a very shallow part
>of the roof, and I don't know whether they are accessible. I suppose
>everything is accessible through the ceiling. I'll probably look into
>that someday. One project at a time! :)
>
>Do you know where to get seals (rubber stripping) for around the frame
>of an electric garage door? Mine is 1/3-gone. I think that is something
>I should replace first.

Agreed.

BORGs all have 'em. Buy a whole new set for under $20. Get the bottom
seal, too. I picked one up for $13.95 about 6 months ago at a local
home improvement store.

--
The United States of America is the greatest, the
noblest and, in its original founding principles,
the only moral country in the history of the world.
-- Ayn Rand

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>
>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>
>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>> and frequently fail.
>
>I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>you mean by "fit in everything they know".

Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or someone
might want it, in the case of product development).

>Actually, I think it's more
>than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should be
>clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure. Staff
>and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but that's
>just part of the process/conversation.

Pretty soon you have to fish or cut bait.
>
>An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>> Chair.
>>
>> Or creeping featuritis.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

someone said:
>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>> and frequently fail.
>
>I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more

Every feature, every concept they can stuff into it.


>than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should be
>clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure. Staff
>and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but that's
>just part of the process/conversation.

Ayup.


>An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>> Chair.
>>
>> Or creeping featuritis.

Engineer Joe sez the Marketing Dept sez:
"If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

On 1/11/11 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
> or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>

Note, I do not build fine furniture, but I have built a desk, workbench,
closet doors, storage cabinets, decks, and benches etc.

Mostly is rolls around in my head a day or two, then a quick sketch, and
on to making sawdust. On two occasions my wife provided the quick
sketch of what she wanted, I just built from there after an hours thought.

Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.

Too much planning and thought, leads to more questions, ad nauseum, the
little details seem to fall out in the process for me, I did the same
process with computer programming, think a bit about the problem, and
then start coding.

--
Froz...


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

tiredofspam wrote:
> Maybe some interest....
> http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.html see where it
> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
> can't be floated.
>
> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
> I'll let you decide.

Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matter
than the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why
do you care? ;)

Bill


>
>
> On 1/11/2011 12:54 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> I used to be a software developer, I am still in the business but in a
>> diff position.
>>
>> I believe in software that planning for the problems is the key goal.
>> Too often I see idiot programmers doing the job, but not handling the
>> errors properly coming up with useless buggy code that is not
>> sustainable.
>>
>> I take the same approach with woodworking. I look for my problems.
>> Then plan around it.
>>
>> The design is the easy part, answering the hicups is the other.
>> Such hickups are making sure the order is correct. Somethings need to be
>> cut before shaping, others are opposite. Somethings will intefere with
>> another feature.. I look for these after the initial idea and refine.
>>
>> I can keep a very simple sketch.. but I keep a detailed list of the
>> steps that I see me falling over. To make sure I don't fall over them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2011 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>>> think).
>>>
>>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>>> or "part of the fun"?
>>>
>>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>>
>>> Bill

FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 1/11/11 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>> think).
>>
>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>> or "part of the fun"?
>>
>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>
>
> Note, I do not build fine furniture, but I have built a desk, workbench,
> closet doors, storage cabinets, decks, and benches etc.
>
> Mostly is rolls around in my head a day or two, then a quick sketch, and
> on to making sawdust. On two occasions my wife provided the quick sketch
> of what she wanted, I just built from there after an hours thought.
>
> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.

Somehow that reminds me of the Octopus Lew told me about. I'm not going
to spend $100,000 on it, as I don't have it and wouldn't even if I
could. But I'm at the point in my life where I am willing to send
flowers... I no longer drink or smoke--and I'm pretty sure that puts
me ahead, even after the flowers, along with probably just about any
power tool you would ever want to have... When I paint my shop this
spring, I'm not going to use the cheapest paint I can find--even if it
stings a bit, even though the cheapest paint I can find would probably
work just fine. Hope that helps you understand my point of view. YMMV.
BTW, I did not take your message personally. Your point of view is
well-taken.

BTW, my hammer is worn out (rubber handle covering is loose) and I have
been debating whether to get the Estwing with the laminated leather grip
or the regular model. So far I haven't been able to justify the $7 extra
for the former. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.
Living gives us, if were fortunate, the freedom to make choices.

Bill


>
> Too much planning and thought, leads to more questions, ad nauseum, the
> little details seem to fall out in the process for me, I did the same
> process with computer programming, think a bit about the problem, and
> then start coding.
>

Leon wrote:
> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> tiredofspam wrote:
>>> Maybe some interest....
>>> http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.html see where it
>>> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
>>> can't be floated.
>>>
>>> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
>>> I'll let you decide.
>>
>> Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matter than
>> the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why do you
>> care? ;)
>>
>> Bill
>
> If the weight of a ship is less than the weight of the water it displaces,
> it floats. If heavier than the water, it sinks. Teak will float if boat
> shaped. ;~)

That's pretty deep when you stop to think about it. Who decides? ; )

On 1/11/11 2:33 PM, Bill wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>> On 1/11/11 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>>> think).
>>>
>>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>>> or "part of the fun"?
>>>
>>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>>
>>
>> Note, I do not build fine furniture, but I have built a desk, workbench,
>> closet doors, storage cabinets, decks, and benches etc.
>>
>> Mostly is rolls around in my head a day or two, then a quick sketch, and
>> on to making sawdust. On two occasions my wife provided the quick sketch
>> of what she wanted, I just built from there after an hours thought.
>>
>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>
> Somehow that reminds me of the Octopus Lew told me about. I'm not going
> to spend $100,000 on it, as I don't have it and wouldn't even if I
> could. But I'm at the point in my life where I am willing to send
> flowers... I no longer drink or smoke--and I'm pretty sure that puts me
> ahead, even after the flowers, along with probably just about any power
> tool you would ever want to have... When I paint my shop this spring,
> I'm not going to use the cheapest paint I can find--even if it stings a
> bit, even though the cheapest paint I can find would probably work just
> fine. Hope that helps you understand my point of view. YMMV.
> BTW, I did not take your message personally. Your point of view is
> well-taken.
>
I wasn't talking cost, I never (or almost never) buy the cheapest
product, but once I decide I need something, a bit of research and I try
to get the best mid range product out there, subject to local
availability, i.e. I avoid WalWart like the plague.

Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.

To each his, or her, own. :-)

--
Froz...


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

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
> think).
>
> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

Designing is part of the fun but as for drawing the plan out, it depends.
If it's another table, nightstand, etc that I've already done several of
then I already have the design/plan in my head and just need to vary the
dimensions.
Simple things like shop jigs I design in my head as I go.
First time projects or those having exact dimensions usually get designed
on paper or sketchup.
Anything with expensive wood *always* gets complete design plans
first and sometimes even a cheap wood prototype. I have been known
to make an error or two on paper and even in sketchup.
Art

FrozenNorth wrote:

> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>
> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>

Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start
out quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
there! Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.

Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.

Bill

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:57 pm, Larry Jaques<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2:24 pm, "Leon"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> tiredofspam wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe some interest....
>>>>>> http://www.outbackpatio.com/infoteakoutdoorfurniture.htmlseewhere it
>>>>>> says teak doesn't float and has to be hauled by elephant because it
>>>>>> can't be floated.
>>
>>>>>> Now other sites say it can be floated based on specific gravity.
>>>>>> I'll let you decide.
>>
>>>>> Naval ships are made out of steel, no? So there is more to the matter than
>>>>> the specific gravity of a substance. Unless it's your elephant, why do you
>>>>> care? ;)
>>
>>>>> Bill
>>
>>>> If the weight of a ship is less than the weight of the water it displaces,
>>>> it floats. If heavier than the water, it sinks. Teak will float if boat
>>>> shaped. ;~)
>>
>>> Will it float if it is balloon shaped?
>>
>> Depends. (sorry, not talking about your undies.) Lead balloons don't
>> float, most others do.
>>
> Axchewishly..... lead balloons DO float. Mythbusters made a lead
> balloon which floated just fine.
>

This thread has covered a lot of ground in half a day... lol

"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cf4ef5a1-d44c-4e8c-a7f2-5941b3f36acc@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think of designing as "part of the
> work" or "part of the fun"?
>
....I probably often started by looking at the
> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>
> Bill

Inspiration comes from many places. Often I see something I want to
reproduce. Often a glance at the wood pile inspires and I do a quick
sketch and start cutting. Often I take weeks (or more) doing
variations of a design to get it just right.

One note, is anything on paper does not convey scale and 5 minutes
slicing cardboard to mock up the actual size of something can be very
instructive. I designed a plant stand that once instantiated in wood
was too big to even be sold as a lecturn.

As an FYI, I often find myself usingthe Agile method (which we use in
SW design in my real job) on my wood projects where design refines
over time during creation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agile as a method is much easier to apply to software. Once you get past a
certain point with wood it is impossible to refine the design without
scrapping the work.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/11/11 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>> think).
>>
>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>> or "part of the fun"?
>>
>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>
>
> Note, I do not build fine furniture, but I have built a desk, workbench,
> closet doors, storage cabinets, decks, and benches etc.
>
> Mostly is rolls around in my head a day or two, then a quick sketch, and
> on to making sawdust. On two occasions my wife provided the quick sketch
> of what she wanted, I just built from there after an hours thought.
>
> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government approach
> of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>
> Too much planning and thought, leads to more questions, ad nauseum, the
> little details seem to fall out in the process for me, I did the same
> process with computer programming, think a bit about the problem, and then
> start coding.


Uh, oh. When doing software it is always best to define the Problem before
doing anything else. Quite often there is no problem or an existing
'solution' can be used.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>
>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>
>
> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>
> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>
> Bill


The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
and frequently fail. An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
Chair.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

On 1/11/11 8:32 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 1/11/11 11:31 AM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I know there are quite a few software people here. Even if you're not
>>> one of them, I hope you'll still get involved in this thread!
>>> In software engineering, we learn to put a lot of effort into design
>>> (and the more of it we do, the better we appreciate that approach, I
>>> think).
>>>
>>> Question: Assuming you a a hobby-ist and not someone running a small
>>> business, do you spend a large percentage of your time in woodworking in
>>> designing your projects? Do you think of designing as "part of the work"
>>> or "part of the fun"?
>>>
>>> I don't really want to interject my own answer here, but I rather enjoy
>>> drawing things out with SketchUp (and I feel confident the quality of my
>>> woodworking will be the better for it). In my teenage years, the last
>>> time I had the resources to work with wood, I would get to the cutting
>>> in minutes--in fact, I probably often started by looking at the
>>> woodpile...lol. Feel free to put your own spin on the question.
>>>
>>
>> Note, I do not build fine furniture, but I have built a desk,
>> workbench, closet doors, storage cabinets, decks, and benches etc.
>>
>> Mostly is rolls around in my head a day or two, then a quick sketch,
>> and on to making sawdust. On two occasions my wife provided the quick
>> sketch of what she wanted, I just built from there after an hours
>> thought.
>>
>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>
>> Too much planning and thought, leads to more questions, ad nauseum,
>> the little details seem to fall out in the process for me, I did the
>> same process with computer programming, think a bit about the problem,
>> and then start coding.
>
>
> Uh, oh. When doing software it is always best to define the Problem
> before doing anything else. Quite often there is no problem or an
> existing 'solution' can be used.
>
Point taken, bad choice of words, should have been "see the solution or
result, find the best way to get there", or something along those lines.

--
Froz...


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

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ?
> "FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>
> Hey, don't talk about my father-in-law like that! He'd spend an hour
> making a tool or fixture to save 30 seconds on a five minute job. It is
> more the challenge of "I can do that" rather than any real time savings.
> The difference between a hobby and a profit making business.
>

I think, for me, it's not just the "challenge" of whether I can do
that, but the intent that it will be part of my education. It's a
philosophy you could build a lifestyle around: "When the next challenge
comes around I'll be all that much ready for it." In my case, I may be
building mobile bases for a TS and/or other tools someday.... It seems
quite consistent with how I learned to play some musical instruments. I
never started off trying to play hard stuff--just the opposite. If all
I was after was a cheap, efficient, and by most measures excellent
solution, I could just play CDs! : ) I'm not a purist, by any means,
but I get by the best I know how to. One of the things I really enjoy
is life, is that the latter is a dynamic (i.e. continually evolving)
state. Have fun!

Bill





> I often do a sketch or simple drawing of a project. Most times, I'll do
> it while sitting in front of the TV when it is too cold to work out in
> the shop. It also gives me an opportunity to think of different ways of
> accomplishing a particular task, make a material list, etc. It may be
> boring for the more experienced guys, but it helps me to have a plan. .

dadiOH wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> BTW, my hammer is worn out (rubber handle covering is loose) and I
>> have been debating whether to get the Estwing with the laminated
>> leather grip or the regular model. So far I haven't been able to
>> justify the $7 extra for the former.
>
> I still use the one I bought in 1943. Different handle, though, made it a
> couple of decades ago when the original broke.

The one I have using I inherited from my grandfather, who was born at
close to the turn of the century. So, as you might imagine, I have been
reluctant to give up on it for sentimental reasons. It's handle shows
lots of different paint splatters on it..a lot of projects.

>
> Bought the hammer, a saw, jack plane, brace and a few auger bits for $10.00
> at Montgomery Wards. I still use the brace too :)

I picked up a bunch of rusted auger bits and a brace in my youth off of
the side of the road (on refuse night). Placing more of a premium on
space now, I had to abandon them earlier this year. I wish I would have
known of your interest as I would have happily shipped them to you
(though, to my untrained eye, they did not look like collector's pieces).

My True Value opens in 15 minutes. I hope to pick up the rest of the
materials for my "project". Then I can play the "chess game" in the
garage, and see if I can make a little room for myself... : ) Good day!

Bill

FrozenNorth wrote:

> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>

Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in knowledge,
by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a little bit
overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll learn to
optimize that with regard to time, utility, and money. In the meantime,
the cost of my going a little bit overboard is part of the price of
tuition. I need the practice! I'd might try out my router on this
project but I think Mike would give me a bad time about it! lol. Stay
warm!

Bill


> Too much planning and thought, leads to more questions, ad nauseum, the
> little details seem to fall out in the process for me, I did the same
> process with computer programming, think a bit about the problem, and
> then start coding.
>

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:32:38 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> ?
>>> "FrozenNorth"<[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>>>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>>
>>> Hey, don't talk about my father-in-law like that! He'd spend an hour
>>> making a tool or fixture to save 30 seconds on a five minute job. It is
>>> more the challenge of "I can do that" rather than any real time savings.
>>> The difference between a hobby and a profit making business.
>>>
>>
>> I think, for me, it's not just the "challenge" of whether I can do
>> that, but the intent that it will be part of my education. It's a
>> philosophy you could build a lifestyle around: "When the next challenge
>> comes around I'll be all that much ready for it." In my case, I may be
>> building mobile bases for a TS and/or other tools someday.... It seems
>> quite consistent with how I learned to play some musical instruments. I
>> never started off trying to play hard stuff--just the opposite. If all
>> I was after was a cheap, efficient, and by most measures excellent
>> solution, I could just play CDs! : ) I'm not a purist, by any means,
>> but I get by the best I know how to. One of the things I really enjoy
>> in life, is that the latter is a dynamic (i.e. continually evolving)
>> state. Have fun!
>
> Good ethos, Bill. Kudos.

Thanks Larry. Everyone gets the choice to believe in something--why
cheat oneself (rhetorical, and not hardly directed at you)?

>
> --
> The United States of America is the greatest, the
> noblest and, in its original founding principles,
> the only moral country in the history of the world.
> -- Ayn Rand

Larry Jaques wrote:

> Got insulation in the roof yet? Just drill 4" holes and blow it in if
> you have a finished floor up there. Cover with a strip of carpeting.
> ;)

I have a half-finished floor up there. And part is not even (very)
accessible. Unfortunately this project is not near the top of my list
for now. My little black "shop mole" is just going to half to tough it out.

Bill



>
> --
> The United States of America is the greatest, the
> noblest and, in its original founding principles,
> the only moral country in the history of the world.
> -- Ayn Rand

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:15:21 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Got insulation in the roof yet? Just drill 4" holes and blow it in if
>>> you have a finished floor up there. Cover with a strip of carpeting.
>>> ;)
>>
>> I have a half-finished floor up there. And part is not even (very)
>> accessible. Unfortunately this project is not near the top of my list
>> for now.
>
> Aren't all the joists open lengthwise? Blow it in!
>
>
>> My little black "shop mole" is just going to half to tough it out.
>
> HUH? Whassat?

Awe, you missed my two posts about my furry, black shop mole? One was
sort of funny...I'll see if I can locate the posts later.


>
> --
> The United States of America is the greatest, the
> noblest and, in its original founding principles,
> the only moral country in the history of the world.
> -- Ayn Rand

Larry Jaques wrote:

> Aren't all the joists open lengthwise? Blow it in!
>
>
Actually, mine run the other way, and half are under a very shallow part
of the roof, and I don't know whether they are accessible. I suppose
everything is accessible through the ceiling. I'll probably look into
that someday. One project at a time! :)

Do you know where to get seals (rubber stripping) for around the frame
of an electric garage door? Mine is 1/3-gone. I think that is something
I should replace first.

Bill

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>
>>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>>
>>
>> Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
>> your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in
>> knowledge, by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a
>> little bit overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll
>> learn to optimize that with regard to time, utility, and money. In
>> the meantime, the cost of my going a little bit overboard is part of
>> the price of tuition. I need the practice! I'd might try out my
>> router on this project but I think Mike would give me a bad time
>> about it! lol. Stay warm!
>>
>
> Don't know which Mike you're referring to here Bill, but if it's me - no
> sweat. I'll only give you a hard time if you beat it to death instead of
> just getting out there and giving it a whirl. Try it - you'll like it.

Thanks Mike. I cut the 5 30-inch "running boards" cut today with my
circular saw. I don't think any two of them vary by more than 1/16 in
length. That would have probably been a 10 minutes job with a TS, no? I
put a new blade on and spent most of my time tinkering with my
make-shift fence afixed with 2 Harbor Freight 6" clamps. I made careful
use of my combination square. I'd mark where I wanted the cut and then
mark where the fence needed to be. With some thought I could probably
come up with a better procedure. But that was the first time I ever did
what I did, so I'll regard it as a success. So now I have a neat little
stack of boards ready for step 2.

Bill

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks Mike. I cut the 5 30-inch "running boards" cut today with my
>> circular saw. I don't think any two of them vary by more than 1/16 in
>> length. That would have probably been a 10 minutes job with a TS, no?
>> I put a new blade on and spent most of my time tinkering with my
>> make-shift fence afixed with 2 Harbor Freight 6" clamps. I made
>> careful use of my combination square. I'd mark where I wanted the cut
>> and then mark where the fence needed to be. With some thought I could
>> probably come up with a better procedure. But that was the first time
>> I ever did what I did, so I'll regard it as a success. So now I have
>> a neat little stack of boards ready for step 2.
>>
>
> As long as you had fun making sawdust, all is well with the world. Next
> time try a time saver... Mark your boards. Set your saw on the board with
> the blade lined up precisely for the cut. Lay your speed square on the
> board as if you were going to mark a line for cut off. Slide it up against
> the side of the base of your saw and hold it there tight. Squeeze the
> trigger and run your saw through the board using the speed square as your
> guide. Nice and quick. Just be sure to hold the speed square firmly to the
> board.
>

I'll have to try that technique. Thanks for sharing it. I did it
backwards! :)

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:14:10 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as you had fun making sawdust, all is well with the world.
>>> Next time try a time saver...
>> <Snip>
>>
>> You need to take a look at Fred Bingham's book for his handy dandy
>> guide.
>>
>> A piece of 13 ply that you cut out a 30-60 triangle with a 12"-14"
>> height. Cut out center to form 2" legs and add a bottom cleat the
>> extends out a couple of inches.
>> (Lightens the jig and provides a handle.
>>
>> First use makes a partial cut in the cleat which is now an automatic
>> reference point.
>
> Yeah, handy gadget.
>
>
>> That jig alone was worth the $20 for the book.
>
> $10.44 delivered, here.

Larry, Where did you find that deal?

>
> --
> Some people hear voices. Some see invisible people.
> Others have no imagination whatsoever.

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:23:17 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>
>>> Don't take this personally, but you seem to go for the government
>>> approach of designing a $100,000 hammer, when $50 will do just fine.
>>>
>>
>> Driving home with my building materials, I thought a little more about
>> your comment. I suppose I compensate for my shortcomings in knowledge,
>> by doing the best job I can even if that means I may go a little bit
>> overboard on some details. With experience, I'm sure I'll learn to
>
> A LITTLE BIT? He make joke.

Larry, I am just curious. What, specifically, were you thinking of when
you wrote that? Just the DP baseboard or something more?

Bill



>
>
>> optimize that with regard to time, utility, and money. In the meantime,
>> the cost of my going a little bit overboard is part of the price of
>> tuition. I need the practice! I'd might try out my router on this
>> project but I think Mike would give me a bad time about it! lol. Stay
>> warm!
>
> Got insulation in the roof yet? Just drill 4" holes and blow it in if
> you have a finished floor up there. Cover with a strip of carpeting.
> ;)
>
> --
> The United States of America is the greatest, the
> noblest and, in its original founding principles,
> the only moral country in the history of the world.
> -- Ayn Rand

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>
>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>
>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>> and frequently fail.

I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should be
clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure. Staff
and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but that's
just part of the process/conversation.


An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>> Chair.
>
> Or creeping featuritis.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>>> and frequently fail.
>>
>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>> you mean by "fit in everything they know".
>
> Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or someone
> might want it, in the case of product development).


The philosophy of the contractor I worked for was that we could do
anything the customer would pay us to do. The important thing is to
capture the specifications in writing, rather than letting the customer
keep coming up with new ideas. Very much like has been discussed here
regarding woodworking contracts, fees for changes, etc.

Bill



>
>> Actually, I think it's more
>> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should be
>> clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure. Staff
>> and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but that's
>> just part of the process/conversation.
>
> Pretty soon you have to fish or cut bait.
>>
>> An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>>> Chair.
>>>
>>> Or creeping featuritis.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:02:18 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start out
>>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>>
>>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know".
>>>
>>> Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or someone
>>> might want it, in the case of product development).
>>
>>
>> The philosophy of the contractor I worked for was that we could do
>> anything the customer would pay us to do. The important thing is to
>> capture the specifications in writing, rather than letting the customer
>> keep coming up with new ideas. Very much like has been discussed here
>> regarding woodworking contracts, fees for changes, etc.
>
> Right, your job is to get the customer to want the feechurs, *after* you've
> signed the fixed-price contract.

There was always something in the works with our customer. We
continually developed two systems simultaneously so that we could
provide new versions faster. Our customer (Uncle Sam), always
had new wishes. We were not sneaky about it. Just firm.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes leads
>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>
>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start
>>> out
>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>
>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>>The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first system
>>and frequently fail. An unfortunate few never get over the first system
>>and
>>try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>Chair.
>
> Or creeping featuritis.


Oh, yeah. Did that one a couple times!

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>> leads
>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>
>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have been
>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start
>>>> out
>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from there!
>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>
>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>> system
>>> and frequently fail.
>
> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what

I mean the first good sized project where it's down to you to design and get
'er done.

> you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should be
> clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure. Staff and
> schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but that's just
> part of the process/conversation.

There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.

Same thing no matter what you build. Break it into bite sized chunks. Write
the test for the chunk before the chunk. How will you know it works? More
important, how will you know you are Done?

>
>
> An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>> Chair.
>>
>> Or creeping featuritis.
>



--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:02:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>>>> leads
>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's
>>>>>> usually
>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally start
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
>>>>>> there!
>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>>>> system
>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>
>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know".
>>
>> Every feature possible, just in case you might need it some day (or
>> someone
>> might want it, in the case of product development).
>
>
> The philosophy of the contractor I worked for was that we could do
> anything the customer would pay us to do. The important thing is to
> capture the specifications in writing, rather than letting the customer
> keep coming up with new ideas. Very much like has been discussed here
> regarding woodworking contracts, fees for changes, etc.
>
> Bill


When I was doing that I'd write the system test before a single line of code
was written and the customer would Sign off on it. Every line in the System
Test was cross referenced to a function in the Specifications, which they
had also signed.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby
>>> Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>>> leads
>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have
>>>>> been
>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's usually
>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally
>>>>> start out
>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
>>>>> there!
>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like the
>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>>> system
>>>> and frequently fail.
>>
>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>
> I mean the first good sized project where it's down to you to design and
> get 'er done.
>
>> you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
>> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should
>> be clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure.
>> Staff and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but
>> that's just part of the process/conversation.
>
> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.

Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a
simple change, you would not look back at me and say there is no
complexity. From a mathematical point of view, the whole system
compiled to finite sequence of 0s and 1s, so in that sense the whole
system is just a NUMBER--certainly a triviality, but not in real terms.
I could give you the number above, or even the source code, and you'd
STILL be searching, for days or perhaps even weeks, on where to make
that simple change. That's why we got paid to do it.

>
> Same thing no matter what you build. Break it into bite sized chunks.
> Write the test for the chunk before the chunk. How will you know it
> works? More important, how will you know you are Done?
>
>>
>>
>> An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>>> Chair.
>>>
>>> Or creeping featuritis.
>>
>
>
>

>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.

The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length determine
the complexity.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby
>>>> Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>>>> leads
>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's
>>>>>> usually
>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally
>>>>>> start out
>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
>>>>>> there!
>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds like
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>>>> system
>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>
>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know what
>>
>> I mean the first good sized project where it's down to you to design and
>> get 'er done.
>>
>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
>>> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>>> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should
>>> be clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure.
>>> Staff and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but
>>> that's just part of the process/conversation.
>>
>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>
> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a
> simple change, you would not look back at me and say there is no
> complexity.

500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system
changes can be simple.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>
> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length determine
> the complexity.
>


How many bits in a byte?

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>
>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>> determine the complexity.
>>
>
>
> How many bits in a byte?
>

8, why?

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby
>>>>> Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>>>>> leads
>>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls
>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally
>>>>>>> start out
>>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
>>>>>>> there!
>>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds
>>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>>
>>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know
>>>> what
>>>
>>> I mean the first good sized project where it's down to you to design and
>>> get 'er done.
>>>
>>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
>>>> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>>>> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should
>>>> be clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure.
>>>> Staff and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but
>>>> that's just part of the process/conversation.
>>>
>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>
>> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a
>> simple change, you would not look back at me and say there is no
>> complexity.
>
> 500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system
> changes can be simple.

Simple huh? Yes, I guess it can be. BTW, complexity is basically an
exponential function of LOC, at least in a procedural world. Have fun.

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>
>>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>>> determine the complexity.

Consider a "sequence" of 0s and 1s with a subscript for every real
number in (0,1) and another with a subscript for every integer. Do they
have the same complexity because they both reduce to ones and zeros
(explain)?



>>>
>>
>>
>> How many bits in a byte?
>>
>
> 8, why?

Lobby Dosser wrote:

> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>
> Same thing no matter what you build. Break it into bite sized chunks.
> Write the test for the chunk before the chunk.

"Unit testing" is something like that. I've never seen the work "chunk"
used in a software engineering context. BTDTBTTS...


How will you know it
> works? More important, how will you know you are Done?
>
>>
>>
>> An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>>> Chair.
>>>
>>> Or creeping featuritis.
>>
>
>
>

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:59:25 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>>
>>>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>>>> determine the complexity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How many bits in a byte?
>>>
>>
>> 8, why?
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong answer.

You appear to derive too much satisfaction from that.

The size of a "byte" determined by the computer's
> architecture. It's defined as 8-bits in all current computers that I know of,
> but it's interesting to note that even C (or C++) doesn't define "Byte" as
> being 8-bits.

As far as I know, C/C++ doesn't define Byte at all.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>
>>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>>> determine the complexity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> How many bits in a byte?
>>
>
> 8, why?


That's as "complex" as it gets.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>>
>>>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>>>> determine the complexity.
>
> Consider a "sequence" of 0s and 1s with a subscript for every real number
> in (0,1) and another with a subscript for every integer. Do they have the
> same complexity because they both reduce to ones and zeros (explain)?
>

If you go looking for complexity you will find it.

You happen to be among those who look for and even expect complexity. It's
not there.

>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How many bits in a byte?
>>>
>>
>> 8, why?
>



--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 01/15/2011 05:33 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>
>>> The length of the sequence is the critical factor! The length
>>> determine the complexity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> How many bits in a byte?
>>
> Depends - on a IBM 709x, 36 bit words, 6 bytes to a word, 6 bit bytes...


How complex can you get in 6 bits?


--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:39:00 -0800, "Lobby
>>>>>> Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just saying over-thinking and over-designing something, sometimes
>>>>>>>>> leads
>>>>>>>>> to less flexibility when the actual implementation time rolls
>>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To each his, or her, own. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, in the case of the DP baseboard, which I suspect you may have
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> referring to, I just wanted to do the project. Amusingly, it's
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>> other who put the lofty design features in my head. I generally
>>>>>>>> start out
>>>>>>>> quite naively with "simple and cheap" and folks help me out from
>>>>>>>> there!
>>>>>>>> Its cheaper than buying boats and new cars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good point about "over-thing and over-designing". That sounds
>>>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>>> voice of experience talking! I appreciate the lesson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 'over' thing is sometimes known as First System Syndrome in SW
>>>>>>> development. Folks try to fit in everything they know in that first
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> and frequently fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume by "first system, you mean the first version. I don't know
>>>>> what
>>>>
>>>> I mean the first good sized project where it's down to you to design
>>>> and
>>>> get 'er done.
>>>>
>>>>> you mean by "fit in everything they know". Actually, I think it's more
>>>>> than fair to say that the better the view of the big picture at the
>>>>> beginning of a project the better the final result. The users should
>>>>> be clear about what they want. Complexity doesn't justify failure.
>>>>> Staff and schedule accordingly. By all means, build a prototype, but
>>>>> that's just part of the process/conversation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>>
>>> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a
>>> simple change, you would not look back at me and say there is no
>>> complexity.
>>
>> 500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system
>> changes can be simple.
>
> Simple huh? Yes, I guess it can be. BTW, complexity is basically an
> exponential function of LOC, at least in a procedural world. Have fun.

No, Bill, it is not. LOC has nothing to do with 'complexity'.



--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> There is no complexity. Everything can be reduced to ones and zeros.
>>
>> Same thing no matter what you build. Break it into bite sized chunks.
>> Write the test for the chunk before the chunk.
>
> "Unit testing" is something like that. I've never seen the work "chunk"
> used in a software engineering context. BTDTBTTS...

So?

>
>
> How will you know it
>> works? More important, how will you know you are Done?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An unfortunate few never get over the first system and
>>>>> try to do it Over and Over. Think about French Polishing an Adirondack
>>>>> Chair.
>>>>
>>>> Or creeping featuritis.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum

On 1/15/2011 6:31 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a simple
>> change, you would not look back at me and say there is no complexity.
>
> 500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system changes
> can be simple.

True; these days a half a million lines of code isn't a lot. I used to work on
OS/2, and though most of it was written in C, a fair amount of the underlying
low-level system was implemented in assembler. I really don't have any idea
what the line count would have been, but I'd guess 500K wouldn't be too far off
the mark. That was a LOT of assembler code. :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/16/2011 11:35 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:11:08 -0600, Steve Turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2011 6:31 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a simple
>>>> change, you would not look back at me and say there is no complexity.
>>>
>>> 500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system changes
>>> can be simple.
>>
>> True; these days a half a million lines of code isn't a lot. I used to work on
>> OS/2, and though most of it was written in C, a fair amount of the underlying
>> low-level system was implemented in assembler. I really don't have any idea
>> what the line count would have been, but I'd guess 500K wouldn't be too far off
>> the mark. That was a LOT of assembler code. :-)
>
> I'd heard, from the developers, OS/2 was more like 2M LOC.

For just the assembler? That could be; I've never seen the actual line counts.
I could probably go off and perform the counts myself if I didn't have better
things to do; I still have access to the source. :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Lobby Dosser wrote:

> No, Bill, it is not. LOC has nothing to do with 'complexity'.

I know what you mean, but you don't appear open to the notion that
complexity can have more than 1 form. Let's go back to chopping wood..I
hate bickering.

Bill

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/15/2011 6:31 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Our system had over 500K lines of code. If I asked you to implement a
>>> simple
>>> change, you would not look back at me and say there is no complexity.
>>
>> 500K lines is quite small. In a properly written and documented system
>> changes
>> can be simple.
>
> True; these days a half a million lines of code isn't a lot. I used to
> work on OS/2, and though most of it was written in C, a fair amount of the
> underlying low-level system was implemented in assembler. I really don't
> have any idea what the line count would have been, but I'd guess 500K
> wouldn't be too far off the mark. That was a LOT of assembler code. :-)
>


The only thing I hated more than assembler was COBOL. Thankfully the only
thing I ever had to do with COBOL was grade a student project.

--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum