Guys, please take this harangue (and future ones) off
list!
At 05:55 AM 07/26/2001, you wrote:
> > 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.
