Okay, I know that, politically, I'm at the opposite end of the shooting range from most of you here, but I just have to say that I think it's interesting/funny/scary that this thread has morphed into a 'mine's bigger' love fest for guns. I had to go back and reread the original post, just to make sure I was on the right thread!

Charles, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I support the right of people to own weapons and to use them for sport or self-defense, and I admire guns as pieces of precision craftsmanship. I think that censorship of ideas is bad, whether it's talking about guns or talking about birth control. I also think Hollywood's glorification of violence (of which Arnold has played a hand, BTW) must carry some blame, but what can be done about it that is not censorship? I hope we would all agree that there has to be some kind of a limit as to what kind of weapons one can buy, who should not be allowed to own them, and what weapons do or do not need to be registered. Obviously, missiles, bombs, RPGs, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons do not belong in the hands of the general public. Similarly, we probably don't want some guy with a prior violent felony conviction and ties to a hate group to have a stash of AK-47s (or 50 cal Barrets). But where do you draw the line? How do we define what is or is not allowable in the hands of the public? I don't have an answer, but I'd be interested in other's opinions. [ 08-22-2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

I grew up in foriegn lands where a mouth like his would get you put against a wall. I would’ve thought you were talking about Rush! People like Limbaugh criticize liberals yet they make huge profits glorifying their supposed failings (Sorry, KJS; I couldn’t resist applying the same logic to the opposition.) I found this movie very thought-provoking and, at times, humorous, but that doesn’t mean I’ll take everything Mr. Moore puts out as pure fact. He’s like the Fox News version of a documentarian. You know he’s thoroughly biased from the start, and that he has an agenda, and that he will construct his arguments to play to his target audience. I have no qualms about the complaints that are being hurled at him here, but in fairness you guys should all have the same complaints about Limbaugh, Matthews, Savage, and all of the rest of the ranting right-wing media. Bias is bias, whether you happen to agree with it or not. Remember: Guns don't kill; bullets do. Guns just make 'em go fast.

I’m hoping for a cabinet position I'm sure she will have lots of positions to fill. Re. Ms Huffington: I like a lot of her views as a pundit, and I enjoy her wit, but I don't think that wit, charisma, and a modicum of intelligence make gubernatorial material. That is exactly the same criticism that I have of Schwarzennegger. Do you guys think either one of these people could sit down at your computer and start writing efficient, functioning programs? I doubt it, or else we are all overvalued. But you are willing to accept that they can just slide into the highest elected position in the State? Politics, like programming, requires an intimate knowledge and understanding of certain codes and proceedures. In other threads we have all shown pride in our years of experience, even labeling ourselves 'senior members' with the implication that knowledge and ability comes from experience. But somehow, some of us are willing to believe that the same does not hold true for the office of Governor. Does this mean that I believe we should pack DC and Sacramento with career politicians? No. But the office of Governor is not an entry level position. I would have no problem with either of these people running for State Senate or Assembly, but I see nothing in either one of them to suggest that they are ready for the top job. [ 08-21-2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

Oh, sure, Jack, you're just laughing yer xxxx off at us whacko Californians, aren't you. I just can't see what Arnold has to offer that makes him the presumptive 'man to beat'. If it's just straight name recognition, then we can look forward to a future contest between Coke and Pepsi. Arnold hasn't articulated any positions, other than to say that he wants to be "the Governor for all of California, not just republicans or democrats." Well, that's just peachy. As you can see from reading through this thread, there really aren't any significant differences of opinion amongst the constituents of this state, so I'm sure he'll have great luck making everybody happy. Maybe he can throw in free beer while he's at it. Bear in mind, too, that Arnold met with Ken Lay of Enron during the height of the energy crisis. He hasn't disclosed the purpose of the meeting, or what was discussed, but you can bet that he'll be just as much in bed with the special interests as any one else. He also met with junk-bond king Michael Miliken at the same time. And his economic advisor, Warren Buffet, has already stated that California's taxes are too low. Sounds like a real revolution to me. "stupid haole" Isn't there a word that's supposed to go in the middle there? Seems to me it begins with an 'F'.

James, do you approve of consensual oral or anal sex between a man and a woman? It certainly is not a procreative act, so in that respect it is no different from the same act between two men. How about xxxxion? There's only one gender involved; is it a sin? If that's the case, 99.99% of all men are going to hell. What about a 'straight' couple that decides to do a FFM threesome? That's gotta be okay, right, 'cause it's every guy's dream. And a MMF threesome is really no different, it's just a matter of personal preference, right? Similarly, do you have a problem with two men or women being 'life-partners' if they do not have sex? If two men are business partners, they can create a legal agreement in case of the eventuality that one of them should die or be unable to work. Are they gay? So what about two men or two women who own real estate together? That's a legit business, isn't it? What if they also live together in one of the houses? Does that change everything? Or is it only if they live together and have sex? If that's the case, then what business is it of yours? Lemme see, as a conservative you want less government, right? You want the government to leave business alone, leave gun owners alone, and leave churches alone, right? But what two people do in the privacy of their own home should somehow limit their rights as a couple? I'm sorry, but I cannot see any way to define the argument that does not come down to a personnal decision regarding private behaviour. It's not my business, it's not your business, and it's not the government's business to decide who is or isn't a legitimate couple.

James, I don't have numbers in front of me, so if you have some documentation, I'll defer to that. Otherwise, my recollection is that Davis had a majority despite the 4% that Camejo recieved. I agree that 5% is not a landslide, but a majority beats a plurality any time. As for Bustamante, I'd heard of his racist comment, but not his college activities. Thanks for the info. Like I said, there are some things I like about the guy, but some things I definitely don't. Racism is why I won't vote for Simon or McClintock, either. Whether it's Mexicans trying to 'take back' land that was never theirs to lose (or ours to win), or children of immigrants trying to keep out other immigrants, xenophobia is wrong. Racism is racism, regardless of one's own race.

...he sold out the public interest for massive campaign contributions... Charles, this is precisely my biggest gripe about Davis. Unfortunately, you can be absolutely sure that whoever takes his place will do the very same thing, regardless of party affiliation.

I was born and raised in California and have lived here all of my life. I have become quite used to my state being joked about as being 'the land of fruits and nuts', and worse. But when I heard that Schwarezennegger was running for Governor, that was the first time in my life that I ever felt truly, deeply embarrassed to be a Californian. We now live in a country where the President is sold on toy store shelves as an action figure, and where another action figure is being sold as our next Governor. Our ‘leaders’ are now nothing more than cartoon icons, spouting meaningless catch-phrases like “Hasta la vista, baby”, and “Bring it on”. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing Mickey Mouse, Madonna, or Joe Montana running for office soon. Meanwhile, all of the noise about the recall obscures the fact that the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. The leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties have a lot more in common with each other and with Ken Lay than they have with you and I. Both parties put us where we are today, and you can bet that the big money on both sides profited from the energy crisis. It's only the little guys like us that got screwed. Had Davis stepped down before the recall petition was certified, then Bustamante would have assumed the Governorship, and the recall petition would have been invalidated. Since Davis didn't (which a lot of Democrats wished he would have), and since Davis could not add his name to the list of candidates (though he tried to), Bustamante threw his hat in the ring at the last minute. This gives those who oppose the recall a fallback position. Even if you vote against the recall, you can still vote for a candidate you would like, in the event the recall succeeds. Because of the number of names on the ballot and the competition within individual parties, it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that our next governor will be elected by a single-digit percentage of the voters. And since only about 30 percent of eligible voters are likely to turn out, it is possible that the winner could represent as little as 1 percent of the state's population. And this person will unseat Gray Davis who, like him or not (and I don't), was elected by a solid majority of the voters. It's a strange kind of democracy when neither our Governor nor our President is elected by a majority of voters. As for me, I have no idea who I will vote for. I might have voted for Riordan (yes, a republican), had he run, but I won't vote for McClintock, Simon, or Ahnold. Bustamante is good on some issues that are important to me, but poor on others, and I doubt that Camejo or Huffington have a chance. All I know is that my vote won't reflect blind allegiance to any party. Oh, and Jimmy (Wakeford), if you wanna talk timber, talk to the guy from redwood country (me).

Well, I made the changes, but now I have to get a few people to resend the PDF's because OE seems to have deleted them. But the consensus seems to be that Ripper's advice is right. Thanks again, everyone.

Thanks, Ripper, I'll give that a try.

Just in the last week, I have suddenly had trouble opening PDF files that are e-mailed to me. They seem to download, Outlook Express shows that there is a PDF attachment with a given size, but it will be grayed out, and I can neither open it nor save it to another location. I can still open PDF's just fine if I get them any other way (on disc or from the web), and I can also open any other type of file that is recieved via e-mail. Any ideas of what's up, and what I can do to fix this?

why do you slow down on arcs? Bald tires?

So now I have the solution, but I still don't understand the problem. I understand all of the points that have been made re; different C-planes and view planes, but when I first encountered this, my first response was to check that both entities were on the same level, C-plane and view plane. When that didn't help, I then redrew both entities, while in the top plane. Still no luck. So then I redrew both arcs in the same plane and at the same z depth, figuring that after trimming I could drop the one to it's correct depth. It still insisted that the two arcs did not intersect. So I'm still confused, but at least I'm not stuck anymore.

BerTau, that worked great, but I don't understand why. What's it mean? Did I draw the arcs while in different views? I often use different view and construction planes, as I tend to move around on the screen alot. But I haven't had that problem before.

Out of the blue, today, I am having trouble trimming two arcs to each other. The two obviously intersect, but Mcam keeps saying they don't. They're on the same level, they're on the same plane, and I've checked everything else I can think of, but it still insists that they don't intersect. Any ideas of what I'm missing here?

Seen recently: "It ain't over 'till your brother counts the votes"

Congrats on the move, Trevor. Are you gonna miss being surrounded by banjos, or is that part of the reason for the move?

...new software...that offers free education, upgrades, ect... Wow! This sounds great! How 'bout if we make the software free, too?

I agree with Trevor that a coons surface and flowline toolpath is the way to go. I would also suggest redrawing your geometry as tangent arcs, rather than splines. Splines can have kinks and irregularities in them, which become magnified when you create a surface from them. I noticed that your shaping is basically a true radius, except at the arm bevel. Have you considered using a radius cutter to machine the perimeter as just a simple 2D contour? This would be much easier to draw, faster to machine, and result in a much cleaner end product. I work with guitars regularly and have done a fair amount of this kind of thing, so if you have any questions, fire away.

I made a giant guitar neck that was 4' long and about 6" wide. It was a store display, not to be played. I designed and programmed a body to go with it, but we never cut it.

I started with Mill Level 3, V6.3 back in '94 or '95. I had an ID degree and a background in various prototyping shops. I actually had my first exposure to CAD (I think it was Bruning CAD?) back in school, in '86 or so, and worked with a CNC mill in '88. Until a couple years ago, all of my experience was with wood or plastics. I didn't start programming for metals until very recently. After 8 years or so, I'm constantly amazed at how much more there still is to learn.

Babe Ruth is the greatest (athlete of) all-time, of course, I don't think anyone would argue with that. Well, maybe I would. I think that the Bambino was the greatest hitter and definitely the greatest sports icon of all time, but if you look at pictures of him, or film of him running, you certainly have to have a narrow definition of the term 'athlete' to call him the greatest of all time. As for drug use, I doubt you could find any major sport, short of golf, where today's stars are not monsters compared to their counterparts from 30 years ago. Compare Shaq to Jabbar, the Williams sisters to Chris Everet, or Mark McGuire to Hank Aaron. Pro athletes these days are friggin' huge, and I don't believe that they were all born that way. As someone else mentioned, pro-cycling invites more drug testing than many other comparable sports, and this may lead to a perception of greater overall drug use, but it could also simply mean that more cheaters actually get caught. Regardless, bravo to Lance for giving new meaning to the phrase "Go postal!" Oh and by the way, shouldn't it be the Tour de Freedom?

As we celebrate the 4th with the time-honored combination of alcohol and explosives, please remember these important words of caution from the fireworks manufacturers: "Light fuse, get away"

Having worked with Andy on this and other graphite jobs, another thing we have tried is using woodworking-style router bits, which are carbide tipped and have no rake. They seem to cut the carbide just fine (since it creates dust rather than chips), and last about as well as a standard carbide cutter, but the advantage is that they are cheap enough so as to be expendable. At around $17 for a 1/2" ball, it's no big deal to just toss it when we're done. Has any one else tried this 'bargain basement' approach? Do the diamond coated cutters last long enough to make the cost worth it for a shop that doesn't do a lot of graphite?