RE: filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > That hardly applies.  Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and
> > require no basic understanding of mechanics.
> >
>
> Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but
> would be insulted by that statement.

I didn't say that all architects didn't have an understanding of mechanical
engineering, material science and physics...but it's not a requirement to
draw an aesthetically pleasing structure.  My understanding is most
architects are NOT engineers.

> > You also conveniently diverged, and avoided answering my question.
>
> No I didn't, I decided not to indulge your insulting tone and attitude,
> there is a difference.

What ever makes you feel better, but it's still avoiding answering my
question.

> I was referring to the tone and attitude
> of your post which implied people who were uneducated (in an official
> sense) in a certain field were unworthy of commenting, having opinions
> or ideas about that area.

You are mistaken.  I never said anything like that at all.

> Qualifications do not necessarily translate to brilliance or even
> understanding;

They certainly do translate into understanding, though possibly in a limited
sense.

> My personal experience has been that people who
> are hardest on education are usually those most educated

Perhaps it's just that they didn't agree with what you were trying to
"educate" them about.

> > I do believe that you don't understand some of the things we have talked
> > about.  I believe you have a "working knowledge" but not an
> understanding.
> >
>
> Is that the royal "we"?  Personally, I'll more often take the opinion of
> a good mechanic who works day in and out on real devices over an
> engineers theoretical opinion, any day.

But that's repair, not design.  If the mechanic were able to design, he
probably would be doing design instead.

> If all engineers were so good
> at what they do, most mechanics would have been out of work years ago.

There are other factors besides the engineers.  Anyone having any real
product development experience knows this.

> As for my personal lack of "understanding", let's just say that in my
> "uneducated" and unwashed state, I have helped to redesign a number of
> products in concert with manufacturers who first hired "engineers" to
> come up with the original failed design.

What product was this?  What exactly did YOU redesign?

> Unlike you, I won't make a
> sweeping statement and malign "all" engineers.

I haven't maligned any engineers at all.  If you believe I wrote that, you
misread what I wrote.

> It's only some who are
> incompetent.

I can't disagree with that.

> Many are simply brilliant at what they do, and probably
> would have been even without their formal education.

I don't know about many, but certainly some.

> > If designed properly, that mechanism can easily last a
> lifetime.  Also, wear
> > does not imply imprecision.
>
> I see :-)  Isn't that true of pretty much most things that prematurely
> break down?

No.

> Creating precision is usually costly.  It requires tight tolerances all
> the way around, including in manufacturing, often from many components
> from a number of sources.  It often means careful testing of dimensions
> of parts along the manufacturing process, more advanced and precise
> machinery and sometimes, better trained assembly workers, who may have
> to also take more time in doing each step. No one is saying it can't be
> done, it just is very difficult when corners are needing to be cut to
> keep competitive.

Er, no.

> Getting back to scanners, why is it there is so much discussion of
> "banding, banding, banding"... is it that manufacturers think we "want"
> banding in our scans?

But I don't believe it is a mechanical issue, at least in this case.  It is
more than likely an electrical issue.  BTW, I have never had any banding in
my scanner.

> Or, yes, some might be software programming defects as
> well.

Does that change over temperature ;-)