"It's a poor workman who blames . . ."

[J. Clarke]

I note that you've avoided the point being raised.

[J]

I thought it was your answer. And I changed nothing. Maybe there is some part of it which I don't understand? I took it to be an echo of George's position stated earlier in the thread. What were you meaning to say?

-j

[J]

I'm with George here. Machines have functions rather than skills.

"Function - The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed."

-j

[J]

Those aren't better skills, those are better processes.

Tools allow the use of those processes which weren't available before. Blacksmiths didn't have high current sources to melt metal in the 1700's. Cabinet makers didn't have portable high speed motors and highspeed steel in the 1800's. They did have things like treadle lathes and did good work on them because they were skilled, but the machine didn't add skill, it justs us turn without having to pump with one leg at the same time.

-j

[Andy Dingley]

I disagree - they did this mainly because punching is easier and quicker than welding, or because they knew (if didn't entirely understand) that it was stronger that way. It wasn't because there was an increased _risk_ if there was a failure at that point.

Forge welding of iron is reliable and the failure modes are benign in comparison to the sudden failures of modern welded steels. If it was going to fail, it's more likely to fail at a stress riser than at a competent weld.

As an example of design techniques for the late industrial smithing period, read Lillico

[rcook5]

Again, I'm defining skill as 'the ability to produce a result.' By that definition the skill is being transferred into the machine.

--RC

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

[rcook5]

Forge welds are susceptible to failures from inclusions left in the weld. Even an expert does this occasionally and sometimes it is impossible to determine nondestructively without modern equipment.

--RC

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

[GregP]

I "avoided" a response to a statement I never made. ??? What am I "avoiding ?"

[GregP]

You most certainly did.

[GregP]

Insisting that people who are not like you are unhappy usually says a lot more about you than them.

More likely from one of our extremist radical Christian groups.

[George]

Nope, self-important pinheads pick on them all the time. Because they're tolerant people, they let it go.

[J]

Can you please explain? I don't think I understand what you are talking about.

-j

[J]

[J]

[Doug Brown]

[GregP]

You eliminated most of my response, which was

It does. The mistake many people make is that they think that they need to look only at the most recent one to predict consistency.

[J]

The most recent what? Consistency of what? First you say they are consistent, then you start talking about predicting consistency. This makes no sense to me. That is why I cut it out. Does it support or refute your argument that computers do the same thing everytime? Really, I bear no animosity. I'm just trying to figure out why you are complaining that I misrepresent what you said.

-j

[GregP]

Well, first you misquoted what I said and called the misquote "naive." Then you twice claimed that you hadn't done that ("I absolutely changed nothing"). You finally admitted that you had when I repeated my post. So why *shouldn't* I "complain" ??

[J]

At least you have been consistant about it. You wouldn't happen to be a machine would you?

-j

[GregP]

I suppose that in this context, lying makes you human ?