On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 at 13:00 -0600, Lars Rasmussen wrote: > switching contexts? "NICs never fail"? Wasn't said.
eating pancakes? Ok, you're right, nobody said that. What you did say was that you would be more worried about things with moving parts failing than a NIC (a thing without moving parts). I totally agree. > Precisly. The statement, "I'm quite sure all those problems combined > are more frequent than failing power supplies." cites yourself as the > authority(therfore an appeal to authority) and is a generalization > based on an admitted small sampling of your own experience. Whatever. > > I admit to not having done a scientific statistical study, but it > > doesn't take a study to recognize that NIC connectivity loss happens. > > I don't see where you're going here - am I supposed to adopt a new > premise & context of our arguement that "NICs never fail"? I'm sorry, I have tried but have not been able to parse that statement. I didn't take wikipedia debate in high school. -- .O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est. ..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach --------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
