[filmscanners] RE: HD failure [was RE: keeping the 16bitscans}

["Frank Paris" <frankparis@comcast.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:29 PM
> To: frankparis@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: HD failure [was RE: keeping the
> 16bitscans}
>
>
> Julian,
> All excellent points.  I would suspect that Frank's response
> may have been based on a poor choice of terms.

My computer brain at work again...

Frank Paris
frankparis@comcast.net

> The MTBF is
> based on "observation" and "observational data;" it just is
> not based on the uncontrolled conditions and exigencies of
> everyday practival life as opposed to the controlled
> contidions of experimental testing and simulations.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:33 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HD failure [was RE: keeping the
> 16bitscans}
>
>
>
> > > Well, the one thing you can say with absolutely certainty is that
> > > the MTBF is not based on observational data.
> >
> >I can say with relative certainly that you are wrong.
> >
> >Frank Paris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body