Not sure I trust these guys...

[Joe]

Very smart design! all the kickbacks get thrown away from you.

of course, changing the angle wasn't very well thought out...

[Nova]

How'd you move the height adjustment wheel to the back of the saw? ;-)

[alexy]

Slide 20 was interesting. I never liked ripping on my RAS, but maybe I was doing it wrong. According to OSHA, the RAS is designed to cut DOWN on the wood, both in crosscut and rip cuts. All this time I had been pushing the wood into the blade, and having to use hold-downs, pawls, etc, to keep the blade from lifting the stock as it cut up.

[Just Wondering]

Picture 10 looks kinda scary to me.

[-MIKE-]

It's there. I thought so, too.

[-MIKE-]

"Self-feeding."

[John Grossbohlin]

It was amusing, in a sad kind of way, to look through that site... quite a number of the captions, images and prescribed practices made me think they'd never actually used tools.

John

[Mike O.]

If you take the four bolts off a UNI and turn the top 180, it would look just like that! ;-)

Mike O.

[Phisherman]

OSHA is a mess.

[Mark & Juanita]

But people still think government is the answer for all our problems. The same kind of bureaucrats running OSHA are going to be running your health care if that goes through. They are already running two of the US car companies doing such brilliant things as cutting Chrysler's ad budget in

1/2 and shutting down 1000's of dealerships, many of which have been quite profitable while leaving a number that were doing poorly open. Why is it with so many examples of screwing things up so badly are people so @#$%'d willing to turn even more responsibility over to them?

[PDQ]

The only thing I ever learned from OSHA is=20

"Don't drink the whiteout."

P D Q

[alexy]

Good point. Chrysler was doing so well before government stepped in and forced them to take taxpayer money. If the feds had only kept their money rather than forcing it on Chrysler, Chrysler would be thriving by now.

I don't like the idea of gov't running businesses, but if they are going to provide capital, it should not be to prop up the status quo that put the company in need of that gov't money.

[Lew Hodgett]

Think if you dig a little deeper you will find Nardelli was brought in to be the front man for a hedge fund whose primary goal was to get the credit arm of Chrysler and unload or bleed dry the manufacturing side of Chrysler, then write it off.

Lew

[Mark & Juanita]

OK, most of this you are missing my point while making my point. First of all, the fact that private corporations went to the government for aid is appalling. I'm not sure what they were expecting, but the fact that they were willing to take taxpayer money they should have expected government strings and controls to come with that money. The problem is that the government does not act is rational fashion and they are proving this with their "car czar" and "automobile oversight committee".

You're smarter than this

I don't recall supporting the idea of taxpayer money supporting the status quo; although, vis a vis the unions, that is in essence what is happening here. Bondholders got shafted and the UAW got majority ownership.

This is where you miss my point while making my point. Given the fact that the auto companies accepted taxpayer funding and the accompanying strings, they are beholden now to the car czar. However, as I stated, the government never acts rationally when it gets entangled in the market. Given your statement, I would expect that you would like to see the government get the automakers back on their feet quickly and get out, minimizing the amount of our taxpaying dollars used to do so. Given that, one would rationally think that the way to do that would be to have the car makers close down unprofitable car lines and models. Given that franchises are typically privately owned, one would not expect the government to make any judgments regarding franchises since the car makers are paid upon delivery and the dealers eat the cost of the inventory. However, if the government were to get involved to that level, one would expect that the profitable and high-volume dealerships would be kept and low-volume under-producers would be cut. Since there is significant angst over car makers being on the verge of bankruptcy and since so many dealerships are being closed, one would expect advertising to stay the same or increase so the consumers would know that the brands are still viable and where to go buy them.

"Government Motors" is doing none of the above. Instead of closing down models not selling well and emphasizing models that are; the government is using this as a chance for social engineering, closing down the large size vehicles that were generating a profit and pushing the automakers to build small lawnmowers on wheels that nobody is going to want. Instead of keeping the franchises making money open, they are losing their franchises (which may be a violation of contract law and have constitutional issues, but then this administration has never cared about that) and lower volume, less or un-profitable dealerships are being kept open. There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason for who is keeping and who is losing their franchises -- some are speculating it may be due to which dealers made political donations to certain parties, but at this time, the sample set is too small to be certain. Finally, instead of promoting the brands, the government has dictated that advertsing budgets for Chrysler be cut in half.

So, as I initially stated, the government is doing all of the wrong things to return those automakers to profitability and appears to be doing exactly the opposite.

[J. Clarke]

I agree that it shouldn't be to "prop up the status quo" but cutting profitable dealerships in favor of unprofitable ones and cutting the ad budget are not going to increase sales. If you want to cut the marginal dealerships and the unprofitable products that's fine. But of course the unprofitable products are the ones that the Democrats want to force everybody to buy so cutting _them_is politically untenable.