> From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02:42 -0400
> Subject: Re: Digital robustness
>
> ... Electronic consumer goods ... are very suseptable to a variety of things.
> Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. One can then
> assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way,
> because it's a consumer electronic good.
>
Sorry guys. I just cannot resist commenting on this really bizarre form of
logic.
a.
> Electronic consumer goods ... are very susceptible to a variety of things.
> Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning.
b.
> "[a consumer digital camera or DSLR is a . . .] consumer electronic good."
c. therefore (?)
>One can then assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that
> way [very susceptible to a variety of things]"
Huh? I am not sure what the sweeping generality in (a) is referring to, but
does the moisture susceptibility of my desktop computer have anything to do
with the likelihood that someone would design a digital camera that was
liable to die when it started raining? As to malfunctioning, everything
malfunctions t some degree. The only issue is the granularity of the quality
control. Chip manufacturers reject a huge portion of the chips manufactured.
But the point is that they do test and they do reject and the functioning
ones make it into products, and the good ones stay good.
I am just totally baffled as to what (a) and the tautological (b) have to do
with the supposed conclusion in (c).
Can we go back to foul language? Or political discussions? <g>
Stan
