twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 23 new messages in 13 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How Does Your CADCAM System Handle Real World Simulation Tasks?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/143ae5c9baca4fec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:38 am
From: Joe788

While losers who can't back up what they have to say continue to post
complete and utter bullshit and spin consider that the Jon Banquer
blog can always back it up with FACTS!

The Jon Banquer blog has added two new screen shots showing exactly
what Mastercam can't do and DP Technology Esprit can easily do with
very little effort on the users part. Is it any wonder that so many
machining job shops that use Mastercam are adding DP Technology
Esprit? The reason for this is straight forward and as simple as it
gets:

Mastercam can't get the job done like DP Technology Esprit can.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

How does your CADCAM system handle real world simulation tasks like
those that have been described and are now shown on the Jon Banquer
blog?

The Jon Banquer blog is the world leader in providing original CAM-
centric content. If you're not reading the Jon Banquer blog you can be
sure of one thing... your competition is! ;>)

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:07 am
From: Joe788

Tired of bullshit from losers who can't backup what they have to say
with facts and screen shots?

When you've had enough bullshit, spin, etc. suggest you check out the
Jon Banquer blog and find out why Mastercam fails miserably at doing
practical / real world multiple part simulation. New screen shots
added this morning show how easy it is to setup a tombstone and solid
cut part verify multiple parts in DP Technology Esprit with none of
the limitations that Mastercam has:

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

"Mastercam requires you to join all your individual .STL parts so they
make up one connected piece. Mastercam won't simulate separate .STL
files all at once. DP Esprit has no such ridiculous limitation.
Simulating a tombstone with many different parts on it is easy in DP
Technology Esprit. It's a exercise in frustration in Mastercam and
isn't practical by any stretch of the imagination."

You can only find this kind of information on the Jon Banquer blog.
The Jon Banquer blog is the leading CAM-centric blog on the internet.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DP Technology Esprit Vs. CNC Software's Mastercam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f80761a39d4169f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:40 am
From: Joe788

The Jon Banquer blog has yet another exclusive that you simply won't
find anywhere else on the Internet. That's because the Jon Banquer
blog is the world leader when it comes to original content for a CAM-
centric blog!

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

Note, this page will be receiving continuous heavy updating in the
coming weeks and months.

If you're not reading the Jon Banquer blog you can be sure of one
thing... your competition is! ;>)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:04 am
From: Joe788

Tired of bullshit from losers who can't backup what they have to say
with facts and screen shots?

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

You can only find this kind of information on the Jon Banquer blog.
The Jon Banquer blog is the leading CAM-centric blog on the internet.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/6f554478475e7965?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:41 am
From: BottleBob

GPN wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:46 pm, BottleBob <bottl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
T
>> By "winger" I assume you mean a Republican.
>>
>> Here is a list of U.S. winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, and what I
>> could find of their political affiliation.
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> In fairness, it's not correct to simply define
> "winger" as being a Republican, or even "Conservative".
> Winger's are a particular subset of the Right Wing that's
> more readily compared to being a Western variant of
> the East's Islamic Fundamentalists, or more succinctly,
> religious sociopaths who integrate politics as a tool.

GPN:

Those hair follicles are being laser sliced pretty thin. LOL

I think the definition of "winger" needs more clarification. I would
think that the general consensus of the term is that you've got right
wingers and you have left wingers. Ideologically left leaning vs.
ideologically right leaning.
People are often considered either right or left wingers without any
religious component. As some left wingers can be intensely religious -
and some right wingers are not religious at all, it doesn't seem that
religious belief is a universal defining characteristic of "wingerness".

> Using that definition, Cliff's quite correct, no "winger"
> has ever won the NPP. The closest there's been that
> I'm aware of is 1973's Henry Kissinger (who didn't
> base his actions in Cambodia on religious grounds),
> and Yasser Arafat, who while a terrorist, was more
> politically than religiously motivated.

I'm not sure that the Republicans that have been awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize could, or could not, be characterized as "wingers" as you
define the term. This seems to be a gray area, and would require more
detailed analysis of each person's political views contrasted &
compared to one's specific definition of "winger".

Someone could use the term "winger" to mean just about anything they
want it to mean at the moment they are using it, and something
different the next time they use it. But in that case it would lose
it's constancy & usefulness as a general & universal defining
characteristic.

Bottom line: The term as Cliff has used it on many occasions appears
to reference individuals belonging to the Republican party. If he
means something different, then he'll have to give his own definition
of what the term means to him.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:36 am
From: BottleBob

RogerN wrote:
> "BottleBob" <bottlbob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:K72dnZakh-kJnr7WnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink.com...

>> RogerN wrote:
>>> Bottlebob showed your lie to be a lie.

>> Roger:
>>
>> Not exactly. I saw something that didn't sound kosher, so I did a little
>> research to try and find out if it were true or not. The intention of my
>> original post was to try to correct an error. For something to be a "lie"
>> you'd have to prove that someone was intentionally trying to be deceptive.
>>
>> Why would someone "lie" about something that could so easily be checked or
>> verified?
>>
>
> Because they want to be flamed by wingers? Why does Cliff make these posts
> and cross post to all kinds of newsgroups?

Roger:

That's a good question. Why DO so many people seem to enjoy political
arguments when they obviously have no desire or intention of trying to
resolve or propose solutions to any political issues, but instead only
want to be insulting and confrontational?

They like the attention?
Want to be newsgroup vandals?
A Desire to impart their "wisdom"?
Are angry & bitter and have a need to take it out on others?
Bored and it gives their lives meaning?
Have the illusion that they are actually making a difference?

There are probably as many reasons as there are posters.

> He enjoys stirring the pot and
> watching the idiots go at it, I was doing my part to try to stir :-) But
> then you come along and apply logic and reason, you owe Cliff an apology and
> a proper flaming, and promise not to do it again :-) You smeared this topic
> with logic and reason but at least you wiped most of the cross posted
> groups.

I couldn't care less what the people in alt.usenet.kooks or any of the
political groups have to say so I usually strip those groups that
aren't machining related.
I don't mind discussing off-topic subjects among other machinists
though. The freewheeling break-room atmosphere and camaraderie of
others in the machining newsgroups is something I've always valued.
But IMO, all the crossposting to the kook and political groups is
destroying that.

> We need a moderator, you might accidently let out that Cliff also
> posts useful and helpful information, but usually he emails it to avoid
> damaging his OT post reputation :-)
>
> Are you working again BottleBob? I saw some on topic posts thought maybe
> you un-retired.

You can't usually do something you liked for decades and just turn off
your interest in it.
But no, I'm not un-retired, even though I did go in to the shop to
finish some parts a couple of Sunday's ago that had to be delivered
Monday morning - when my old boss asked me to.

>
> RogerN

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Multiple Part Simulation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/37402eb98b42b273?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:41 am
From: Joe788

How does your CADCAM system handle multiple part simulation?

Find out how DP Technology Esprit does Vs. Mastercam X4

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:26 am
From: "\"D\""

On Dec 12, 8:41 am, Joe788 <larryro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How does your CADCAM system handle multiple part simulation?
>
> Find out how DP Technology Esprit does Vs. Mastercam X4
>
> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

It handles it quite well, Thank you!!
Instead of spending time complaining about it on the internet, I sit
down and do the actual work WITH my cad-cam system.
It took me less time to copy, tanslate, rotate, and assign offsets to
a 6 set up part than it took to read the bullshit you spewed about the
"broken, un-useable" software!

Go figure, taking the time to do the work????????

"This aint no vending machine, you dont put a quarter in and get a
finished product out"

"D"

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:02 am
From: Joe788

Tired of total bullshit from losers who can't backup what they have to
say with facts and screen shots?

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

You can only find this kind of information on the Jon Banquer blog.
The Jon Banquer blog is the leading CAM-centric blog on the internet.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What Is The Best Way To Learn DP Technology Esprit?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4cb0d82e50887dd1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:43 am
From: Joe788

Find out why this DP Technology Esprit video training is highly
recommended by the Jon Banquer blog:

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/what-is-the-best-way-to-learn-dp-technology-esprit/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shop Vac Air Lift Platform
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b644134a01945bfc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:04 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <hfvefp0h1n@news1.newsguy.com>,
Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > Did you check which of the 52,000 hits were technical descriptions
> > versus catalog offerings of motors not built into something else?
> > (There! That'll keep him busy for 100 years.)
>
> Heh! (Too) many of them were ads from Chinese manufacturing plants.
> That fact saddened me so I didn't pursue it further.

But there is just one immense electric noodle plant that makes them all.

> (...)
>
> > We may have gotten into a semantic tarpit, but I do recall seeing such
> > motors in old books on electric motor design, recounting the days when
> > every variation was tried, the winners being the stat=ndard designs of
> > today.
>
> Each has it's strong points. The hub motor on my bicycle is of
> the 'external rotor' type. Makes a compact, powerful package, it does.

Also far easier to seal against dirt.

> >> Stators spin only when you've lost your tail rotor.
> >>
> >> That is operating them far outside their specifications
> >> and is not recommended. :)
> >
> > Autogyro operation is in the specs, is it not?
>
> Always!

Good to know - the ground is soo far away.

Joe Gwinn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lord Moncton Declares Sarah Palin To Be The Greatest Authority On
Climate In The World
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b5e701ffea1711b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:14 am
From: "TimK"

"§nühw¤£f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDF5EA046D83snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142...
> Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
> thought with news:hdp5i5l1nckv3hr7pijt77c14pjep4m8nr@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:44:42 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.usenet.kooks, "TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>
>>>"§nühw¤£f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9CDE694CD5994snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142...
>>>> And this is worth a read:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rall.com/2009/12/ted-rall-column-give-hoot-but-were.ht
>>>> ml
>>>
>>>You know, I have to agree. We won't stop it or even slow it down.
>>>We ought to be looking at how we're going to adapt to it - managed
>>>retreat, etc. But we still have to get off oil as a national
>>>security issue.
>>>
>>
>> That is what always amazes me, the basic denier is more often than
>> not big on defense issues. They don't get that disconnect.
>>
> ITs yet another side effect of AMericas addiction to something.
> We're fighting a failed drug war when ending prohibition would solve
> it.
> We're addicted to foreign oil when energy self sufficiency would fix
> it.
> Go fig.

It's so easy to declare war on nouns.
So hard to define victory...

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:48 am
From: Aratzio

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:14:54 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
"TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> got double secret probation for writing:

>
>"§nühw¤£f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9CDF5EA046D83snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142...
>> Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
>> thought with news:hdp5i5l1nckv3hr7pijt77c14pjep4m8nr@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:44:42 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.usenet.kooks, "TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> got double secret
>>> probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"§nühw¤£f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9CDE694CD5994snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142...
>>>>> And this is worth a read:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.rall.com/2009/12/ted-rall-column-give-hoot-but-were.ht
>>>>> ml
>>>>
>>>>You know, I have to agree. We won't stop it or even slow it down.
>>>>We ought to be looking at how we're going to adapt to it - managed
>>>>retreat, etc. But we still have to get off oil as a national
>>>>security issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is what always amazes me, the basic denier is more often than
>>> not big on defense issues. They don't get that disconnect.
>>>
>> ITs yet another side effect of AMericas addiction to something.
>> We're fighting a failed drug war when ending prohibition would solve
>> it.
>> We're addicted to foreign oil when energy self sufficiency would fix
>> it.
>> Go fig.
>
>It's so easy to declare war on nouns.
>So hard to define victory...
>

Here is an interesting scenario:

1. Oil embargo of the 70's drives innovation to wean off hydro-carbon
based energy consumption.
2. US becomes energy self-sufficient in 1980s
3. Iraq invades Kuwait in early 90s
4. US tells middle east to handle their own shit, no Gulf War I
5. No US Military Bases in Muslim Holy Land
6. No attack on WTC
7. No invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, No Gulf War II
8. Thousands of US Soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iragi civilians
still alive.
9. US Economy booming supplying renewable energy resource tools to
world.

It all came down to: "I can make more money importing oil from the
middle east, so fuck America."

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:59 am
From: TUKA

On 2009-12-12, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhi68hu.a7q.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>> On 2009-12-11, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhi4qbh.pnu.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>>>
>>>> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>>>
>>> How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
>>
>> And what has that to do with melting glaciers?
>>
>> Oh, that's right -- nothing. Which is probably why you snipped the
>> context.
>
> As so may of you deniers are want to do, you appeal to past climate changes
> in a flaccid attempt to demonstrate that current changes are no more
> important. However, the large error in logic your lot commits when doing
> that is the tacit assumption that the impact on k will be no different.
> There are many orders of magnitude more humans on the planet now than then.
> There is an old saying in the learned circles, so I doubt you've read it,
> that goes civilization only exists by geological consent. Well, the same can
> be said of climate. It is obvious that you lack even the rudimentary logical
> skills necessary to evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even
> modest sea level rise and shifting climate patterns. But you just go right
> on ahead waving your arms in sweeping generalizations and rampant
> hyperbole - after all, that's all you have. You certainly know fuck all
> about the science. You are the most dangerous kind of stupid person - the
> one with an opinion.

Ad hominems, appeals to authority, dismissiveness, and red herrings. That's
all you got, boy.

--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:03 am
From: Aratzio

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:59:51 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
TUKA <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> got double secret probation for
writing:

>On 2009-12-12, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhi68hu.a7q.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>>> On 2009-12-11, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnhi4qbh.pnu.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>>>>
>>>> How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
>>>
>>> And what has that to do with melting glaciers?
>>>
>>> Oh, that's right -- nothing. Which is probably why you snipped the
>>> context.
>>
>> As so may of you deniers are want to do, you appeal to past climate changes
>> in a flaccid attempt to demonstrate that current changes are no more
>> important. However, the large error in logic your lot commits when doing
>> that is the tacit assumption that the impact on k will be no different.
>> There are many orders of magnitude more humans on the planet now than then.
>> There is an old saying in the learned circles, so I doubt you've read it,
>> that goes civilization only exists by geological consent. Well, the same can
>> be said of climate. It is obvious that you lack even the rudimentary logical
>> skills necessary to evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even
>> modest sea level rise and shifting climate patterns. But you just go right
>> on ahead waving your arms in sweeping generalizations and rampant
>> hyperbole - after all, that's all you have. You certainly know fuck all
>> about the science. You are the most dangerous kind of stupid person - the
>> one with an opinion.
>
>Ad hominems, appeals to authority, dismissiveness, and red herrings. That's
>all you got, boy.

Complete obfuscation and avoidance of the facts. That's all you got,
illiterate pussy?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:09 am
From: TUKA

On 2009-12-12, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:59:51 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> TUKA <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>On 2009-12-12, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhi68hu.a7q.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>>>> On 2009-12-11, TimK <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "TUKA" <tuka@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnhi4qbh.pnu.tuka@bill.heins.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
>>>>
>>>> And what has that to do with melting glaciers?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's right -- nothing. Which is probably why you snipped the
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> As so may of you deniers are want to do, you appeal to past climate changes
>>> in a flaccid attempt to demonstrate that current changes are no more
>>> important. However, the large error in logic your lot commits when doing
>>> that is the tacit assumption that the impact on k will be no different.
>>> There are many orders of magnitude more humans on the planet now than then.
>>> There is an old saying in the learned circles, so I doubt you've read it,
>>> that goes civilization only exists by geological consent. Well, the same can
>>> be said of climate. It is obvious that you lack even the rudimentary logical
>>> skills necessary to evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even
>>> modest sea level rise and shifting climate patterns. But you just go right
>>> on ahead waving your arms in sweeping generalizations and rampant
>>> hyperbole - after all, that's all you have. You certainly know fuck all
>>> about the science. You are the most dangerous kind of stupid person - the
>>> one with an opinion.
>>
>>Ad hominems, appeals to authority, dismissiveness, and red herrings. That's
>>all you got, boy.
>
> Complete obfuscation and avoidance of the facts. That's all you got,
> illiterate pussy?

And you prove my point.

--
Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dual Saw -- anyone use one?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/16bd3d055c4043ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:37 am
From: mm

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:14:04 -0500, "Existential Angst"
<UNfitcat@UNoptonline.net> wrote:

>
>But ultimately, this pos is just a 4.5" angle grinder, with a toothed blade.
>$19 from HF.

Perhaps you didn't notice that this thing has two blades turning in
opposite directions. That's a bigggg difference from an angle
grinder, and maybe a big difference in performance too.

It seems to me it would make the kerf bigger but make the cut easier
to control.

>AND, just how useful is an angle grinder with a toothed blade? visavis a
>regular circular saw?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obamas passport?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ae3d1d5305329f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:45 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"aarcuda69062" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nonelson-192E0D.21253507122009@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <4b1c40b9$0$4971$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
>>
>> "...and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a
>> natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other
>> diplomatic
>> agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of
>> the
>> place where the child was born.
>>
>> "III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this
>> continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the
>> United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution
>> as
>> originally established."
>
> Am I supposed to confuse the historic references used by the justices
> with their actual decision?
> Their decision [in Wong] applied strictly to the question of
> citizenship. Nothing else.

They said "natural-born." They used the same term, in a paraphrased version
of the above, in the dissent. While it's not strictly precedential, this is
the last substantial case in which the subject was explored and the Justices
on both sides made a clear statement about it. If it had come to a case in
which the point had to be adjudicated, it would have been the primary
precedent.

>
>> You may recall that you were quoting the Happersett case, which was
>> decided
>> in 1875.
>
> You may recall that Happersett was quoted in Wong so it is no less
> relevant than your above references to English Common Law.

But all that the Court said in Happersett was that they did not intend to
decide the issue. So what precedent do you think it establishes? Wong quotes
Happersett only to establish that both Courts agree that the Constitution
says nothing about the issue, and that they have to revert to English common
law for an answer. But Happersett doesn't even attempt to do so. In the Wong
case, the Court did exactly that -- in great detail.

>
>> Ark was good law until January of this year, at which time the
>> issue was decided by statute.
>
> Statute can not overpower the constitution.

It doesn't have to in this case. The Constitution does not define "natural
born." That's what statutes are for.

>
>> However, you neglected a key line from Happersett, the very next sentence
>> after the section that you quoted:
>>
>> "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
>> doubts."
>
> They had doubts. Imagine that!

In other words, they didn't know and didn't care, because it didn't bear on
the case -- in other words, it's obiter dicta, anyway. Yet, somehow, you've
seized on this case, which clearly states that they are not deciding the
issue, and concluding through some weird logic that it means something.

What I'd like to know is where you got the Happersett reference. Obviously
it's something dredged up by a birther with time on his hands, because even
a few minutes spent reading it clarifies that it's of no help in deciding
the issue either way. Whoever dredged it up did so hoping that no one would
bother to check the facts.

>>
>> In other words, not only was the Happersett case mooted and superseded by
>> Ark; not only was the passage you quoted dicta, and therefore not
>> precedential; but the Court said it so many words, WE DON'T KNOW AND WE
>> DON'T CARE. <g>
>
> It may seem to you that they didn't care. They didn't care so much that
> they felt it necessary to make comment.
> What it really says is 'if we were to make such a decision, here's how
> we'd decide.'

Really? And what is it that you think they said they'd decide?

>
>> In the Wong Kim Ark case, the Court *did* know.
>
> Yup, he's a citizen. Nothing more.

Here is what distinguishes it from Happersett, which, you'll recall, states
right in the decision that they aren't going to deal with it. In Wong, they
*did* deal with it. Here are some of the references called upon in the case,
taken directly from the Court's decision:

The Court in Wong quotes Dred Scott:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the
language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be
acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used
in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this
country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred
citizenship to the place of birth."

And it quotes US v. Rhodes (1866):

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects,
and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born
citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common
law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . .
We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the
common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always
obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions,
since as before the Revolution."

And it quotes the Kent commentary:

"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the
King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not
aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United
States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute
declaration to the contrary."

And in addition to the quotes, it went into extensive analysis of the
English and US commentary on the principles of citizenship, including the
meaning of "natural-born."

So Happersett and Wong agree that the issue is left undecided by the
Constitution. They further agree that, as in many cases, the Court must
revert to English common law for an answer. At this point Happersett turns
away from this question and addresses the real issue of their case, but Wong
continues, quoting extensively from US and English precedent; recognized law
authorities; and "common understanding," the same basis on which the Court
recently decided the 2nd Amendment and, a few decades ago, the right of
privacy.

That's quite a load of precedent and argument. That's why the courts
wouldn't even hear the birther-nutbag cases against Obama. And now we *do*
have a definition of the term, as defined by statute, which went into effect
a couple of weeks before Obama was sworn into office. So it's all over for
those who agree he was born in Hawaii. The real loonies have had to turn
their guns elsewhere, now claiming that he wasn't born in Hawaii at all.
When that fails, they'll probably claim that he isn't human. <g>

>
>> Back to the drawing board for you, aarcuda.
>
> Back to the wishing well for you Ed.

Here's wishing you well, too, aarcuda. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Twas The Night Before Christmas (Shop)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/3e65deb421bd86f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:47 am
From: Joe788

On Dec 11, 5:17 pm, Franco <Fettucc...@dulledge.com> wrote:
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in news:se6dnRUHBbIlf7
> _WnZ2dnUVZ_gidn...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > BottleBob wrote:
> >> To All:
>
> >> Twas the night before Christmas
> >> And all through the shop
> >> The CNC's were running, even the Haas
> >> The parts were hanging by the chimney with care
> >> Is hopes that the cleaning fluid would dry by air
> >> The tools were nestled all snug in their drawers
> >> Some Criterions in holders and ready to bore
> >> The employees were home filled with Christmas cheer
> >> While I was still feeding parts, the only one here
> >> When out in the shop there arose a screeching chatter
> >> I sprang from the computer to see what's the matter
> >> Away to the Fadal I flew like a flash
> >> Opened the doors to prevent a crash
> >> The coolant had stopped and loaded the cutter
> >> I hit the red button as smooth as butter
> >> The part was saved with a cutter comp edit
> >> Machine was fine and it started no sweat
> >> Looking around, the shop machines were humming
> >> Which was great since the due date was coming
> >> On Haas on Mori on Makino and Kitamura
> >> On Fadal on Okuma on Hurco and Matsuura
> >> They're the babies that bring in the bucks
> >> And make Christmas possible for some of us schmucks
> >> I was humming to myself as I walked out of sight
> >> Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good-night
> >> (BB 12/11/09)
>
> > Needs work Bob......
> > You're at milgill or Vinny quality at present.
> > Step it up old dude and maybe bonqueer will post it to his glob.
>
> The Night Before Christmas
> by Richard Tater
> 'Twas the day before Christmas when I dropped by the shop
> To change out a part I was running for 10 grand a pop.
>
> I lowered the blank by the jib crane with care
> Another minute or two and I'd soon be out of there.
>
> The blank was clamped all snug to the bed,
> While visions of profits danced in my head
> And I changed out the chip barrel quick as a snap
> Then was about to give the green button a tap,
> When out by the dumpster there arose such a clatter
> I sprang from my mill to see what was the matter.
>
> Away to the loading dock I flew like a flash
> I tore open the door and looked toward the trash.
>
> The winter's sun hung in the sky so low
> That it gave a harsh glare to the objects below.
> When, what to my wondering eyes should appear?
> But a beat up old Saab and a disheveled little queer,
> With a greasy shirtsleeve he wiped his infected honker,
> I knew in a moment it must be Jonny Bonker.
>
> More rapid than eagles his curses they came,
> And he muttered and nuttered and dropped name after name.
> Now, Mastercam, now BobCrap, and Featurecam are all shit,
> But HSM works, with my brilliant help, will be a big hit.
> Bill Gibbs is a pussy, Tom Brewer's mother's a whore!
>
> After I scavenge this dumpster I'm, gonna make war!
> As cut chips before an air gun do fly,
> When they meet with an object they mount to the sky.
> So up to the dumpster-top the curser he flew,
> To search for pizza crusts and demo disks amid all the goo
>
> And then in a twinkling, I heard from the junk;
> "Goddamn John Carroll is a worthless old drunk!"
> I needed a weapon and was turning around,
> when up from the refuse Jon leapt with a bound.
>
> He was dressed in a uniform and from what I could tell
> the king of CAD/CAM is an employee of Taco Bell!
> A garbage bag from the cafeteria he had flung across his back,
> And he looked like a peddler opening his pack.
>
> His eyes - how they sparkled, his find made him merry!
> His teeth were like tombstones, his nose a rotten cherry.
> His foul little mouth was like that of a toad,
> he had a complexion like five miles of bad road.
>
> The stump of a pizza crust he clenched tight in his teeth,
> while the stench of homelessness encircled him like a wreath.
> He had a drawn face with boils full of pus,
> that oozed green liquid as he started to fuss.
> He looked crazy insane, his normal old self,
> And I laughed when I saw him in spite of myself.
>
> A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
> Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
> He spoke not a word, but went straight to work,
> And filled his briefcase with his pickings, then he turned with a
> jerk.
>
> And laying a finger well up in his nose,
> Then gave it a lick while up from his knees he rose.
> He sprang to the Saab which wheezed to life with a whistle
> And away he flew like the down of a thistle.
> But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight
> "Wait until WESTEC all, where there will be a big fight!"
>
> --
>
> Franco

Holy shit that is funny!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Oregon Update
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/6993d95cf672b286?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:00 am
From: Jim Wilkins

In XP you have to set the flash drive to Performance, then you can
format it NTFS.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Is Mastercam Now Being Dumped So Frequently?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/dab9ce3d234dc3fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:14 am
From: Joe788

Funny how the total bullshit posted in these newsgroup about once a
shop has a CADCAM system it's almost impossible to change doesn't play
out in the real world. Mastercam was completely dumped by one of the
leading shops in San Diego and who has replaced Mastercam with Open
Mind Hypermill.

Further, DP Technology Esprit is being added by many shops who are
sick of Mastercam not being able to get the job done.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

You can only find this kind of information on the Jon Banquer blog.
The Jon Banquer blog is the leading CAM-centric blog on the internet.

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:26 am
From: "vinny"

"Joe788" <larryrozer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3407fa15-20f4-408f-ba18-f3a481640127@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Funny how the total bullshit posted in these newsgroup

(fuxored sentencing....)

about once a
shop has a CADCAM system it's almost impossible to change doesn't play
out in the real world. Mastercam was completely dumped by one of the
leading shops in San Diego and who has replaced Mastercam with Open
Mind Hypermill.

******
The center of the CadCam world, san diego.
*****

who are
sick of Mastercam not being able to get the job done.

*****
Sick of shitty programmers with 10 years at work/1 month experience.
For the most part....programmers suck these days.
You have to dig thru 5 shitheads to find 1 keeper.
*****

you've had enough bullshit, spin, etc. suggest you check out the
Jon Banquer blog and find out why Mastercam fails miserably at doing
practical / real world multiple part simulation. New screen shots
added this morning show how easy it is to setup a tombstone and solid
cut part verify multiple parts in DP Technology Esprit with none of
the limitations that Mastercam has:

******
Your the only limitation mastercam has.

******

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

*******
Because it's 3 times the price.
*******

Simulating a tombstone with many different parts on it is easy in DP
Technology Esprit. It's a exercise in frustration in Mastercam and
isn't practical by any stretch of the imagination."

******
Skill's still matter, the push button age isn't here yet. Maybe you could
freeze yourself for 20 years?
*******

You can only find this kind of information on the Jon Banquer blog.
The Jon Banquer blog is the leading CAM-centric blog on the internet.

******
Lame. Your blog says nothing. I wish it did, then I wouldn't of wasted 5
minutes of my life checking it out
******

http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/dp-technology-esprit-vs-mastercam-x4/

HAVE YOU EVER USED ESPRIT?
Have you ever read any of the esprit boards?
People buy that crap...then get super pissed and buy something else.
It's still just wire edm software, and only because they are in bed with
the main wire machine makers, and get first dibbs on power supply/knowledge
based stuff.
I don't like the software at all, and Iv'e proberbly used it more than any
other system.
I'd take a new version of mastercam over esprit anytime for milling.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change
row
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/8d6eaf0c480fb887?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:39 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:24:12 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
<snell-p@rmc.ca> scrawled the following:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>
>> You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
>> science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
>> that that counts nowadays. <sigh>
>>
> I guess our opinions differ on what kind of publication SciAm is, or
>what a scientific article is. Scientific American (or at least my
>experience of it) is a newsy folksy publication that presents articles
>based on science already conducted or being examined. Does anyone
>actually present new or original research directly to them? That's when
>peer review generally happens.

They started out as a real science mag.

>> First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
>> natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
>> anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
>> It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
>> curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
>> Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.
>
> Well I can't say it's less than honest, but you're right it doesn't
>completely follow logic either. If it can't be attributed to 'natural'
>causes, and the evidence implies some Human contribution, I guess that
>leaves supernatural causes as the other cause. Maybe this is God's
>modern day flood!;-)

Yeah, that fits in with science...how? ;)

>> Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
>> we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
>> while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
>> sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
>> for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
>> truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
>> science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?
>
>
> Well Scientists are people, with egos and neuroses just like the rest
>of us. I don't doubt that there are rivalries and conflicts of
>personality (actually I know it). But the actions of a few scientist
>don't define all of science. In fact the system is set up to prevent
>that. As far as I know (and I haven't checked in depth) the scientist
>who's work was being supposedly 'suppressed' was actually published. It
>was probably peer reviewed to! And I agree about the dark side of
>politics and big business. I think whoever it is that hacked into CRU's
>computer system is as worthy of scorn as any group.

Yabbut, scientists, doctors, lawyers, cops, and ministers are all
supposed to be above that. Hmm, I guess science just bit the dust
like all the rest.

>> I've read so much biased shit on this subject that when my finely
>> honed shit detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
>> to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
>> I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
>> want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.
>
> I agree mostly. But the baby and the bathwater analogy seems
>appropriate here. It is helpful to have an idea about where people are
>getting their information to make decisions. I trust Science a LOT more
>than I trust politicians and lobbyists, or celebrities and popular writers!
>
>
>>
>>>> P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?
>>> Yes. Yes we do.
>>
>> So, quick: Quote one!
>
> You mean like McIntyre and McKitrick ? :-) Well they aren't actually
>scientists..... Not that there's anything wrong with that. And of course
>we have Dr. Weaver.

MM vs. the Doc? Opposites, if we've ever seen any, wot?
(Andrew Weaver, Canada's Spinner Warmist in Chief, right?)

> And of course we have David Suzuki, The CBC, etc

More True Believers(kumbaya), eh? I guess you -do- have a few. ;)

> You'd probably like this article, I did:
>
>< http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/08/f-vp-handler.html>

Yeah, I did. Mike provides some interesting topics.

>> P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
>> had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
>> leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.
>
> More biased shit! ;-) I'm sure it's interesting, but I already have a
>line up of books to read on subjects I find more interesting (like
>metalworking) So this will be my last reply. Nice talking to you.

It's a quick read and I wish it were a mandatory read in schools. He's
the closest to neutral of all the writers I've seen yet, and if
nothing else, he makes one think about things from both sides.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Saturday, December 12, 2009

rec.crafts.metalworking - 23 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts